district court logo

Dagety v Supercity Rental Management Ltd [2018] NZDC 15288

Published 05 June 2019

Appeal of Tenancy Tribunal — Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 16A, 117 — issues of agency. The appellants appealed a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal pursuant to s 117 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Tribunal's decision concerned an application by the respondent, as agent for the landlord, for access to the premises in order to inspect the premises, carry out maintenance on the property if required, and to allow real estate sales agents to appraise the property for sale. The application was granted. The appellants were not satisfied with the decision and appealed the decision in its entirety. They raised two issues: (a) Whether the respondent was authorised to act as landlord or agent of the landlord to initiate the proceeding, and (b) Whether the landlord is entitled to gain access to the premises for the purpose of allowing real estate sales agents to appraise the property for the purposes of sale, given that there is a fixed term tenancy in place until December 2019. On the first ground, the plaintiffs made several arguments for appeal, central to which was that there was a verbal agreement between the plaintiffs and landlord that no property management agent would be appointed. However, the Judge held that the right to appoint an agent is derived under common law and all that is required is proper notice to the other contracting party, which was done in this case. Further, the Tenancy Agreement did not state the landlord could not appoint an agent on its behalf. Further, as the landlord lives in Thailand, s 16A of the Act makes it mandatory for a landlord who is out of the country for longer than 21 consecutive days to ensure that an agent is duly appointed. For this reason it was mandatory for an agent to be appointed. On the second ground on the right of access, the Judge held that the Tribunal decided correctly. However the Judge made a modification to the order, limiting the number of people allowed to enter the property. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Judgment Date: 1 August 2018.

Tags