Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Over Flatmates' Dispute
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a dispute between a head tenant and her flatmates because it determined that it lacked the authority to hear disputes between flatmates, as opposed to disputes between landlords and tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between flatmates.
📖 What the law says
This section states that the Tribunal has the power to resolve disagreements between landlords and tenants about tenancies covered by this Act. It also allows the Tribunal to decide if certain properties are residential premises under the Act or if a tenancy agreement exists.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes between flatmates.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a dispute between a head tenant and her flatmates, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear such disputes between flatmates, as opposed to landlord-tenant relationships.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151771 1
[2025] NZTT 5151771, 5152198
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these applications and the matters are dismissed.
Reasons:
1. The applicant attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the respondents.
2. Both parties have filed claims against the other for what appears to be rent arrears and unfair termination.
Jurisdiction
3. The matter I must first determine is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims.
4. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or grantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. See section 77 RTA. The
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151771 2
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
5. A tenant is someone who rents a property from the landlord/owner, and usually has a tenancy agreement that records that they are the tenant and have obligations to the landlord. Conversely, flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are often responsible to a head tenant(s) for their share of rent and outgoings. This position remains even if the head tenant is not physically residing at the property.
6. Here, the applicant is the head tenant. She had a tenancy agreement with the owner (who is not a party to this dispute). The respondents had a sub-letting arrangement and agreement with the head tenant.
7. In other words, they were the head tenant’s flatmates, and the dispute therefore exists between flatmates. Accordingly, the relationship between the parties is not a landlord/tenant relationship and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the applications.
8. Alternative options for resolving the dispute were discussed at the hearing.
Suppression
9. Section 95A of the RTA permits that the Tribunal may, on application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particular of any witness or part not be published.
10. Given both parties had genuine uncertainty regarding jurisdiction, and the decision that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, I order suppression of all parties’ details.
[NAME] 18 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151771 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes between flatmates.
- The relationship between the head tenant and flatmates is not considered a landlord-tenant relationship under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The Tribunal can suppress names and identifying details of the parties involved in the dispute.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claim that the Tribunal should have jurisdiction over disputes between flatmates due to rent arrears and unfair termination was rejected.
- The argument that the Tribunal should consider the dispute as one involving a landlord and tenant relationship was dismissed.
- The request for the Tribunal to make a determination on the claims despite lacking jurisdiction was denied.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided it did not have the authority to hear disputes between flatmates.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about rent arrears and unfair termination between a head tenant and her flatmates.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the relationship between the parties was not a landlord-tenant relationship, but rather a flatmate relationship.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 77, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the relationship between the parties was not a landlord-tenant relationship, thus falling outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should seek alternative methods to resolve disputes with flatmates, as the Tenancy Tribunal cannot hear such disputes.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.