What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4917658 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4917658?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917658?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10951723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4917658 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4917658?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917658?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10951723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4917658 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of at is terminated, and possession is granted to , at
00 noon on Monday 20th January 2025.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 16 August 2024 set out the background to the applications.
The landlord’s application seeks termination on the grounds of assault and interference with the peace comfort and privacy of neighbours. The tenants’ application asserts that the landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy without grounds.
The second hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 26 September 2024. Both parties attended the second hearing. Mr M participated in the second hearing as a witness. Assault
The tenants provided CCTV footage of the incident that occurred on 14 June.
The cameras are on the exterior of the tenant’s house. They are motion activated. The cameras record for a specific period after being activated, then stop recording unless there is further movement within the camera’s radius.
The footage shows the lead up to the alleged assault. Mr M, who was mowing near the tenant’s house, got off the mower and walked to a line of small trees on the tenants’ side of the driveway. He was shouting at Ms Gilliland, telling her not to film him or his children. Ms Gilliland began striding towards Mr M.
The footage does not capture the physical altercation that occurred shortly after this, at the treeline. By this time Ms Gilliland was outside of the camera’s motion sensor radius.
As noted in the previous order, Mr M and Ms Gilliland gave different versions of that altercation. Mr M did not deny that he was on the tenants’ property, and he did not deny that he attempted to knock Ms Gilliland’s phone out of her hands. He said that Ms Gilliland struck him on the face then kicked him in the groin. Ms Gilliland said that she kicked out with her foot when Mr M “lunged” at her. Her foot made contact, but she could not recall where on Mr M’s body. She denied striking Mr M on the face.
The Tenancy Tribunal “shall making an order terminating the tenancy” if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, the landlord or a number of other specified persons, including any agent of the landlord or any neighbour of the premises. 1
The burden of proof that applies in the Tenancy Tribunal is the civil standard of “more likely than not” or “on the balance of probabilities”.
The Tribunal applies principles established in the criminal jurisdiction, including that: a. Any non-consented physical contact with another person constitutes an assault. b. An action in reasonable self-defence or defence of another is not an assault 2 .
Applying these principles, my finding is that it is not proven that Ms Gilliland assaulted Mr M on 14 June 2024. It is not proven to the standard of more likely than not that Ms Gilliland struck Mr M in the face. Ms Gilliland’s act of kicking Mr M was reasonable self-defence given that: a. Mr M was trespassing and was in an agitated state. b. Mr M attempted to knock Ms Gilliland’s phone out of her hands. 1 Section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Bell v Kirton TT Timaru TT35/91 17 May 1991 c. Mr M is a tall man and physically much stronger than Ms Gilliland.
[The landlord/s] also raised an incident that took place in February 2023. Again, this was a confrontation between Mr M and Ms Gilliland about mowing.
Ms Gilliland said that Mr M was on her property and refused to leave. and that he was goading her. Ms Gilliland acknowledged that she “swung” at Mr M, attempting to slap him. Mr M said that Ms Gilliland in fact struck him forcefully on the head. Ms Gilliland said that she missed.
Ms Gilliland’s action on that day constituted an assault, whether or not she made contact with Mr M’s head. An assault includes an act or gesture to apply force to another person, where the other person believes on reasonable grounds that the tenant has the capacity to give effect to their purpose 3 .
It seems that the landlord did not bring an application seeking termination for assault at that time because they could not prove physical contact. However, as stated above, assault includes attempted assault and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 specifically provides for termination for a threat to assault as well as actual assault.
Therefore, the June 2024 incident, which was the focus of the landlord’s application, does not provide grounds for termination for assault but the February 2023 incident, which the landlord discussed mostly by way of background, does.
In any event I am satisfied that there are grounds for terminating the tenancy for interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours. Therefore the February 2023 assault is not the sole basis for termination. Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy of neighbour
As noted in the previous order, the issues raised under this heading mostly relate to allegations of behaviour by Ms Gilliland towards Mr M, in particular: a. Interfering with mowing. b. Filming Mr M and his children. c. Making false allegations about Mr M.
The landlords also allege that other neighbours have had difficulties with Ms Gilliland’s behaviour.
There is clearly animosity between Ms Gilliland and Mr M. Ms Gilliland’s actions must be viewed within the context of a conflict. Whether or not he was the instigator, Mr M was a contributing party to that conflict. It would be unjust to isolate Ms Gilliland’s behaviour without taking into account that context. The 3 Grey v Housing Corp of NZ DC Auckland CIV-2010-004-218 more general allegations of “bad mouthing” each other, using offensive language, and being antagonistic, fall into this category of behaviour that both parties seem to have been guilty of. If that behaviour is grounds for terminating Ms Gilliland’s tenancy it is also grounds for terminating Mr M’s.
Similar considerations apply to the allegations of filming. At the hearing I was provided with several photographs and video recordings showing Ms Gilliland apparently recording Mr M on her phone.
The obvious irony is that Mr M is himself recording and photographing Ms Gilliland in order to show Ms Gilliland recording him. Some of the videos were taken from inside Mr M’s tractor when he was mowing near Ms Gilliland’s house. The videos show him approaching the house with his phone directed towards the house, filming Ms Gilliland sitting or standing outside the house (phone in her hand) and they also show the inside of Ms Gilliland’s house through the windows. In that sense Mr M’s videos of Ms Gilliland are just as intrusive as Ms Gilliland’s recording of Mr M going about his business.
I acknowledge the ‘arms race’ problem here – the only way for Mr M to evidence Ms Gilliland’s behaviour is to film or photograph it, leading to more filming and photographing, and so on.
I also strongly emphasise that this argument does not apply to Ms Gilliland filming Mr M’s children. There is no reasonable justification for that behaviour.
In my view the behaviour that is most problematic is Ms Gilliland’s interruption of the mowing. Ms Gilliland’s landlord, [Ms Gilliland’s landlord/s], is effectively her neighbour in respect of the large grassed area between the two properties. It does not form part of the area rented to Ms Gilliland and Mr Butters, and it does not form part of the area rented to Mr M.
[Ms Gilliland’s landlord] is entitled to engage Mr M, or any other contractor of her choosing to maintain that area. The landlord’s evidence shows that Ms Gilliland has, on multiple occasions, stood in front of tractors and other pieces of machinery refusing to move. That behaviour is dangerous and unacceptable.
In the previous order I set out the criteria for termination of a tenancy for breach of a duty owed under the terms of the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act.
I am satisfied that: a. Ms Gilliland breached the RTA by causing an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of her neighbour. b. The breaches were multiple incidents of interfering with Mr M carrying out mowing of the section next to the tenanted property, without reasonable excuse, creating the risk of injury and/or damage to machinery. c. The breaches are not capable of being remedied, but the landlord has issued several breach notices and anti-social behaviour notices to Ms Gilliland about these (and other) incidents. d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination. I have had regard to the following considerations: i. There have been multiple incidents, not just a ‘one-off’. ii. Ms Gilliland’s behaviour has been erratic and unpredictable. The videos show her running towards tractors in motion, standing in front of operating machinery, and refusing to move. iii. There is a real risk of this being a continuing ‘flash point’ between Ms Gilliland and Mr M, resulting in a further escalation of the conflict.
Therefore, I have made an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenants are well established in the property, and it is a difficult time of year to find new rental properties. I will make the date of termination 20 January 2025. The tenancy can end before that date if: a. Both parties agree; or b. The tenants give the landlords 28-days’ notice of termination. Cross-application, filing fee, name suppression
I have made a finding that there are grounds for termination of the tenancy. Therefore, the tenants’ cross-application must be dismissed.
The landlord had been successful in their application. I must award the landlords the filing fee for the application. 4 The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. 5 N Blake, 15 October 2024 4 Section 102(4) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917658 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917658 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions