What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784060 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4784060?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784060?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9971339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784060 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4784060?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784060?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9971339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4784060 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784060 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. General Law

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that each party must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “... like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Having explained that the standard of proof in the Tribunal is the civil standard, I should clarify that it is not “beyond reasonable doubt”, the standard which applies in criminal matters.

The landlord says that on 12 January 2024, the tenant assaulted another tenant at the premises. The landlord served an immediate termination notice on the tenant on 15 January 2024

In evidence, the tenant said that he had ongoing issues with the other tenant and that on this occasion the other party had thrown a chair away that the tenant had been sitting on. She had further taken videos of the tenant, which caused him to become upset. The tenant said that he had not touched the other party.

CCTV video of the incident was played at the hearing. That video shows that the tenant statement that he had not touched the other tenant was incorrect. The video shows the two parties pushing and shoving, with the tenant seeming to be the aggressor. The tenant managed to get hold of the other party’s mobile phone and the video shows him throwing it to the ground and then walking off.

The tenant said that he did not intend to hurt the other party. An intention to hurt is not required for an act to amount to an assault.

As a result of this incident, the landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on 15 January 2024. The notice complies with the requirements of s.66U (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenancy ended on 15 January 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

I find in the circumstances that the termination notice is valid.

The landlord is granted possession of the premises.

As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is granted. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784060 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 am on Friday 23 February 2024.
The tenant must pay the landlord $20.44 being the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. General Law
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that each party must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “... like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Having explained that the standard of proof in the Tribunal is the civil standard, I should clarify that it is not “beyond reasonable doubt”, the standard which applies in criminal matters.
The landlord says that on 12 January 2024, the tenant assaulted another tenant at the premises. The landlord served an immediate termination notice on the tenant on 15 January 2024
In evidence, the tenant said that he had ongoing issues with the other tenant and that on this occasion the other party had thrown a chair away that the tenant had been sitting on. She had further taken videos of the tenant, which caused him to become upset. The tenant said that he had not touched the other party.
CCTV video of the incident was played at the hearing. That video shows that the tenant statement that he had not touched the other tenant was incorrect. The video shows the two parties pushing and shoving, with the tenant seeming to be the aggressor. The tenant managed to get hold of the other party’s mobile phone and the video shows him throwing it to the ground and then walking off.
The tenant said that he did not intend to hurt the other party. An intention to hurt is not required for an act to amount to an assault.
As a result of this incident, the landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on 15 January 2024. The notice complies with the requirements of s.66U (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy ended on 15 January 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
I find in the circumstances that the termination notice is valid.
The landlord is granted possession of the premises.
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is granted. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784060 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784060 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions