A New Zealand landlord who was locked in a dispute with the Chinese embassy over rubbish disposal has lost a NZ$960 ($559;£462) claim.
Chandler Investments Limited claimed the embassy left a rented Wellington mews house without covering cleaning and other costs.
A tenancy tribunal dismissed the claim, saying the embassy was protected by sovereign immunity.
This means a government cannot be sued in another country without its consent.
Chandler Investments Ltd had sought payment for "cleaning, rubbish removal and key cutting", claiming this amounted to some NZ960 ($559;£462).
But in tribunal records seen by the OceanNewsUK, adjudicator Rex Woodhouse concluded that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case and dismissed it.
Representatives from New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) were present at the tribunal hearing, but neither party to the claim attended. While Mr Woodhouse was able to contact a person from the Chinese embassy, "she knew nothing about this application", he wrote in his judgement.
The applicant for the tenancy was recorded as "Embassy of the People's Republic of China", and compensation was first sought last May at the end of the tenancy.
MFAT noted that there were commercial exceptions to immunity but the adjudicator said he was "not persuaded that the rental of a residential dwelling to an embassy would be commercial in nature".
"It was definitely a quirk we didn't see coming," owner Chris Chandler told local media, adding that he thought the amount would have been "immaterial" for the embassy.
"No more diplomats, and according to our property manager, that's the advice he gives to others in the same area as well," Mr Chandler said.
This is not the first time that a landlord in New Zealand has found found themselves caught out in a tenancy dispute with an embassy.
In 2018, a claim was made against deputy chief of mission for the European Union Eva Tvarozkova, over $11,700 (NZ$20,000) in unpaid rent and incidentals at a Wellington property.
While the tribunal initially ruled that the landlord was entitled to the money, MFAT later advised that Ms Tvarozkova had diplomatic immunity - protecting her from prosecution - and asked for another hearing.
