The Guardian-Undiplomatic impunity Chinese embassy leaves New Zealand landlord with 900 bill
October 19, 2023 3 min 504 words
这篇报道揭示了一起充满法律悬念的外交事件。中国驻新西兰大使馆租住的房产产生了费用争议，但由于外交豁免权，新西兰的租赁仲裁庭驳回了房东的索赔。这种情况引发了对外交法和主权免责权的重大讨论。 尽管中国大使馆是租户，但根据仲裁庭的裁定，其享有主权免责权。这引发了有趣的问题，即租住的住宅是否可以视为商业交易，从而不受免责权的保护。房东声称这个费用对中国大使馆来说微不足道，但免责权并不区分金额大小。 这个案例引起了人们对外交特权和法律漏洞的关注，以及外交人员在租住的住宅中的商业性质。此外，这也是不是第一次出现这种问题，去年的一起类似案件中，一名欧盟驻新西兰代表因外交豁免权而免除了付款义务。 这个案例突显了国际法律和外交规定之间的复杂关系，需要更多的讨论和明确的法规来解决这类争议。对于房东来说，这是一个具有挑战性的法律悬念，但也是外交法领域的一个引人注目的案例。
A landlord in New Zealand has run up against an unusual problem while trying to make his tenant pay $900 for rubbish removal: diplomatic immunity.
Chandler Investments Limited claimed its tenant, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, left a rented mews house in the capital, Wellington, without covering costs for cleaning, rubbish removal and key cutting.
New Zealand’s tenancy tribunal has dismissed the claim after finding the tenant to be a state and thus protected by sovereign immunity.
“Here the claim is filed against the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand. It must follow that the claim is in fact a claim against a state, the People’s Republic of China,” records from the tribunal in September say.
The adjudicator, Rex Woodhouse, found that the arrangement between the landlord and tenant fell outside the usual protections afforded to landlords in New Zealand.
Exceptions to sovereign immunity include disputes that are commercial. Because renting a home was “incidental to the daily life of the diplomat” and profit was not being made from the arrangement, the exclusion was not upheld.
“I am not persuaded that the rental of a residential dwelling to an embassy would be commercial in nature, as the common law around diplomatic or sovereign immunity would consider it.”
Representatives of New Zealand’s foreign affairs and trade ministry were granted a right of appearance at the hearing, while neither of the parties in the dispute attended. Neither the embassy nor the People’s Republic of China waived their immunity.
“It was definitely a quirk we didn’t see coming,” landlord, Chris Chandler, told local news outlet Stuff.
He said that he believed the total amount of NZ$960 (AU$900) would have been “immaterial” to the Chinese mission. Tribunal records show an embassy representative “knew nothing” about the claims made by Chandler.
Chandler said he would not rent property to embassies again.
“No more diplomats, and according to our property manager, that’s the advice he gives to others in the same area as well,” he told Stuff.
The case follows another dispute over property rented to embassy staff in New Zealand. In 2018, landlords were warned not to rent to diplomats after the deputy head of mission for the EU’s delegation in New Zealand, Eva Tvarozkova, was cleared from paying $20,000 to cover unpaid rent and damage to a property she rented in Wellington.
Tvarozkova was initially ordered to pay the money she owed to landlord, Matthew Ryan, but was later found to be exempted by diplomatic immunity. At the time, Ryan said the decision regarding the Slovakian diplomat was “a travesty”.
In Canada, Ontario’s supreme court ruled in 2018 that the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations did not apply to commercial transactions by diplomats in their host country.
The ruling was made after a US diplomat, Betsy Zouroudis, claimed her diplomatic status exempted her from paying $10,000 in unpaid rent and legal fees.