New Zealand landlord loses rubbish row with Chinese embassy

A NZ$ 960($ 559,£ 462 ) claim was lost by a New Zealand landlord who was at odds with the Chinese embassy over trash disposal.

The consulate left a rented Wellington stables house, according to Chandler Investments Limited, without paying for cleaning or other expenses.

The state was rejected by a lease court, which ruled that sovereign immunity protected the embassy.

This implies that a government may be sued abroad without that nation’s permission.

Chandler Investments Ltd. had requested payment for” cleaning, rubbish removal, and key cutting ,” claiming that this amounted to about NZ960($ 559,£ 462 ).

However, according to court documents viewed by the BBC, judge Rex Woodhouse came to the conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case and dismissed it.

Both parties to the claim were absent from the tribunal hearing, which was attended by representatives from New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ( MFAT ). While Mr. Woodhouse was able to get in touch with a representative of the Chinese ambassador, he concluded that” she knew nothing about this app.”

The rental applicant was identified as an” Embassy of the People’s Republic of China ,” and the first request for payment was made in May of last year.

The judge stated that he was” not persuaded that renting a residential home to an consulate would be commercial in nature ,” despite MFAT’s observation that there were commercial exceptions to immunity.

Owner Chris Chandler said the amount would have been” immaterial” for the embassy and that it was” clearly a quirk we didn’t see coming.”

No more officials, and that’s the tips he gives to other people in the same place, according to our house manager, Mr. Chandler said.

This is not the first instance in which a tenant in New Zealand has found themselves embroiled in an embassy rental debate.

Eva Tvarozkova, the deputy chief of vision for the European Union, was accused of over$ 11,700( NZ$ 20, 000 ) in paid rent and necessities at a Wellington property in 2018.

MFAT later advised that Ms. Tvarozkova had political resistance, shielding her from prosecutors, and requested a second reading, despite the tribunal’s initial ruling that the employer was entitled to the money.