What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5125188 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 5125188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125188?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5125188 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 5125188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125188?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125188 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Lucy Colquhoun at Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing of an application for termination of the tenancy first decided by the Tribunal on 24 January 2025.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy because the tenant assaulted another of the landlord’s tenants, her neighbour.
The reason the tenant gave for requesting a rehearing (and the reason the Tribunal granted a rehearing) was because she had evidence she wanted to place before the Tribunal not available at the time of the first hearing. The evidence the tenant referred to was evidence by the person she assaulted.
Today, Ms Colquhoun said that her witness was not available to attend. She referred to a letter he had written which appears to be in relation to her first appearance on a charge of assault with a blunt instrument.
That letter contains a phone number for the witness, but when the Tribunal called the number, the call went to voice mail.
On that basis alone, the Tribunal could allow the landlord’s application because the tenant has not provided the further evidence she wanted the Tribunal to consider.
However, the Tribunal will again address the matters relevant to an application such as this. Section 55(1)(c)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Ms Colquhoun does not deny that she assaulted another of the landlord’s tenants, her neighbour. She stabbed him several times, she says with a stick. The person assaulted was taken to hospital by ambulance. Ms Colquhoun was charged with assault with a blunt instrument. She states that she has pleaded not guilty to that charge.
Ms Colquhoun described the circumstances of the assault as a ‘lovers’ quarrel’ which she and her neighbour had quite often. She said she acted in self- defence and at one point held the sharp point of an axe to his throat.
The landlord’s representative provided witness statements from two witnesses, also residents at this social housing complex. The witnesses gave evidence in person at the first hearing. Ms Colquhoun did not require them to be phoned to read their witness statements today as she has previously heard the evidence.
The witness statements describe a disturbing scene where Ms Colquhoun stabbed the other tenant outside her unit slashing him on his arm, chest and back. They describe how one of them called the police who responded quickly; multiple police cars with maybe 8 officers attended. The police threatened to taser Ms Colquhoun. She was arrested and taken into custody.
Ms Colquhoun said the witnesses who had provided the statements were ‘lonely, bored and lazy with nothing better to do’. She said they do the same thing to ‘every other person’.
Ms Colquhoun’s evidence that she and the tenant she assaulted were just involved in a lovers’ tiff is simply not credible. She stabbed the other person with an instrument multiple times. He required hospital treatment. And she was charged with a criminal offence.
Even if there was some element of provocation as Ms Colquhoun says there was, that does not alter the fact that she assaulted the other tenant seriously.
The assaulted tenant has stated that he forgives Ms Colquhoun in the letter he wrote in support of her. That too is not a relevant consideration for this Tribunal, though it might carry some weight in the criminal proceedings.
The tenant, by her own admission, assaulted her neighbouring tenant. The reasons for the assault do not detract from the fact of its occurrence.
The Tribunal has only a limited discretion not to make an order terminating the tenancy in a case such as this. It must be satisfied that the breach (the assault) has been remedied (which it cannot be); that the landlord has been compensated for any loss (not a relevant factor here); and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further similar breach.
Having observed the tenant’s demeanour today, and having considered all the evidence put before the Tribunal, I cannot conclude that a similar incident will not occur again.
The tenancy is terminated because the tenant assaulted a neighbouring tenant. The assault was serious. Matters such as claimed self-defence or provocation might be relevant to the criminal charge but they are not directly relevant factors for an application made under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful for her – see section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Lucy Colquhoun at Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing of an application for termination of the tenancy first decided by the Tribunal on 24 January 2025.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy because the tenant assaulted another of the landlord’s tenants, her neighbour.
The reason the tenant gave for requesting a rehearing (and the reason the Tribunal granted a rehearing) was because she had evidence she wanted to place before the Tribunal not available at the time of the first hearing. The evidence the tenant referred to was evidence by the person she assaulted.
Today, Ms Colquhoun said that her witness was not available to attend. She referred to a letter he had written which appears to be in relation to her first appearance on a charge of assault with a blunt instrument.
That letter contains a phone number for the witness, but when the Tribunal called the number, the call went to voice mail.
On that basis alone, the Tribunal could allow the landlord’s application because the tenant has not provided the further evidence she wanted the Tribunal to consider.
However, the Tribunal will again address the matters relevant to an application such as this. Section 55(1)(c)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Ms Colquhoun does not deny that she assaulted another of the landlord’s tenants, her neighbour. She stabbed him several times, she says with a stick. The person assaulted was taken to hospital by ambulance. Ms Colquhoun was charged with assault with a blunt instrument. She states that she has pleaded not guilty to that charge.
Ms Colquhoun described the circumstances of the assault as a ‘lovers’ quarrel’ which she and her neighbour had quite often. She said she acted in self- defence and at one point held the sharp point of an axe to his throat.
The landlord’s representative provided witness statements from two witnesses, also residents at this social housing complex. The witnesses gave evidence in person at the first hearing. Ms Colquhoun did not require them to be phoned to read their witness statements today as she has previously heard the evidence.
The witness statements describe a disturbing scene where Ms Colquhoun stabbed the other tenant outside her unit slashing him on his arm, chest and back. They describe how one of them called the police who responded quickly; multiple police cars with maybe 8 officers attended. The police threatened to taser Ms Colquhoun. She was arrested and taken into custody.
Ms Colquhoun said the witnesses who had provided the statements were ‘lonely, bored and lazy with nothing better to do’. She said they do the same thing to ‘every other person’.
Ms Colquhoun’s evidence that she and the tenant she assaulted were just involved in a lovers’ tiff is simply not credible. She stabbed the other person with an instrument multiple times. He required hospital treatment. And she was charged with a criminal offence.
Even if there was some element of provocation as Ms Colquhoun says there was, that does not alter the fact that she assaulted the other tenant seriously.
The assaulted tenant has stated that he forgives Ms Colquhoun in the letter he wrote in support of her. That too is not a relevant consideration for this Tribunal, though it might carry some weight in the criminal proceedings.
The tenant, by her own admission, assaulted her neighbouring tenant. The reasons for the assault do not detract from the fact of its occurrence.
The Tribunal has only a limited discretion not to make an order terminating the tenancy in a case such as this. It must be satisfied that the breach (the assault) has been remedied (which it cannot be); that the landlord has been compensated for any loss (not a relevant factor here); and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further similar breach.
Having observed the tenant’s demeanour today, and having considered all the evidence put before the Tribunal, I cannot conclude that a similar incident will not occur again.
The tenancy is terminated because the tenant assaulted a neighbouring tenant. The assault was serious. Matters such as claimed self-defence or provocation might be relevant to the criminal charge but they are not directly relevant factors for an application made under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful for her – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125188 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125188 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions