Appeal from Tenancy Tribunal — Department of Corrections — Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2 — Parbhu v Want [2018] NZHC 2079 — Anderson v FM Custodians & Anor [2013] NZHC 2423. The appellant sought to contest the Tenancy Tribunal's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under the Residential Tenancies Act, because the Act did not apply to the particular circumstances of the case. The appellant was staying in a residential care facility that collaborates with government agencies. The appellant was served a notice of termination of tenancy. The Tribunal followed the High Court decision of Anderson v FM Custodians; however the appellant brought the present proceedings based on the High Court judgment Parbhu v Want, that was delivered four weeks after the Tribunal's order. The respondent did not oppose the appeal. The Judge did not agree the premises where the appellant resided could not be occupied by “any person” because the premises were where offenders subject to extended supervision orders reside. The Judge was satisfied that the new authority, Parbhu v Want, meant that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction, as “any person”, in the context of s 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, does not bear the restricted meaning. The Judge quashed the previous Tribunal order and referred the matter back to the Tenancy Tribunal for a hearing on the issues outstanding. On costs, the respondent submitted that costs should not follow because (a) the respondent has acted responsibly by not contesting the appeal, as soon as the judgment in Parbhu became available; and (b) the respondent did not seek costs against the appellant before the Tenancy Tribunal, where it succeeded. The Judge considered the starting point for costs on a 2B basis, in the sum of $3,687.50. For the reasons submitted costs were reduced by 40 percent to $2,212.50. Judgment Date: 9 October 2018.