What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153164 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 5153164?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153164?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11466673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153164 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 5153164?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153164?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11466673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153164 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153164 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153164 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

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 Christopher Smith at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Christopher Smith will pay [The landlord/s] DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely by phone.
On 5 February 2025 Tenancy Services served a Notice of Hearing and associated documents to Mr Smith's e-mail address for service and also to the tenancy address advising him of the date of the hearing being 19 February 2025 at 2:00 pm and that it would be conducted by phone and he would be called on the number provided.
Just prior to the hearing commencing the Tribunal received a message from the [city] Tenancy Tribunal saying that Mr Smith had arrived at court for his hearing and that he wanted an adjournment as he wanted to provide witness statements and photographs, disputing the claim. He was advised by the Court that as it was only a short time before the hearing was about to commence this application for adjournment could be discussed with the adjudicator at the hearing.
The adjudicator called both [the landlord/s] representatives and Mr Smith on the phone number provided, and he said he wanted an adjournment and that he had only received they notice the day before on 18 February 2025. [The landlord/s] responded to this application saying they did not agree with it given the nature of the claim and also on the day prior they had been advised that Mr Smith had been arrested and charged with Male v Female common assault in relation to the events that where alleged to have taken part on 25 January 2025. They were concerned that he had been bailed to the tenancy address which is only two units up from the victim and although there were bail conditions that he should not associate with her, they felt it was important for her safety and others in the complex that the matter was dealt with at this time.
The Tribunal considered the application for adjournment and declined it taking into account concerns raised by the landlord and that not only had the notice of hearing and associated documents been served at his e-mail address, 14 days was sufficient time to allow for service to the tenant to the tenancy address. The hearing proceeded. The claim
[The landlord/s] have applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. [The landlord/s] rely on section 55(1)(c)(v) to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a 1 bedroomed unit, one of a large social housing development operated by [the landlord/s]. The units occupied by Mr Smith and the victim are in a joined block and in close proximity to each other.
The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2021.
As the applicant, [the landlord/s] must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court, and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Termination The law
[The landlord/s] seek termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – ... (c) the tenant has caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court [city], CIV- 2004-409- 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. [The landlord/s] evidence
In support of the claim the landlord produced 2 statements, one from [Witness A], the victim, and another from [Witness B], a friend of the victim.
As there had been some delay in starting the substantive hearing due to the consideration of the adjournment application, [Witness B] was contacted first as he had time restrictions. [Witness B] read the written statement he had given to [the landlord/s] on 30 January, which in summary stated; •He had spent a couple of hours visiting [Witness A], an old friend, on 25 January 2025 leaving around 5:30 pm and when he left she was well and happy and had no visible injuries. About six or seven minutes after he left, she called him and told him she had been assaulted and sounded very distressed so he returned to the unit. When he arrived, she was visibly shaking and was in shock and there was some redness on her face but at that point there was no black eye. She told him she had been patting another tenant’s cat when Mr. Smith came out of his unit and punched her once with force on her head. She said Mr. Smith had accused her of poisoning his tomatoes. He went down to look at the tomatoes which showed no sign of being poisoned and Mr. Smith came storming out of his unit and admitted he had punched [Witness A] as she had poisoned his tomatoes and his cat and then he stormed off. •[Witness B] said Mr Smith presented as being quite unhinged. [Witness A] and [Witness B] went to the police station the day after to make statements. He thinks [Witness A] may have said on that day that Mr Smith walked past her unit and intimidated her.
After [Witness B] had finished reading his statement Mr Smith was asked if he had any questions to ask him but he said he had none.
At that point the Tribunal indicated that they would be phoning [Witness A] so she was able to give her statement. Mr Smith said he had evidence that it wasn't him that committed the assault but that someone had arranged a hit on her and he said she was a liar and he didn't want to listen to what she had to say. Mr Smith was given the option to stay on the call, but he declined.
As Mr Smith indicated he had photographs and evidence on his phone that he wished to produce the Tribunal made an arrangement that hearing would re convene at 2pm on 20 February in order for him to do that and explain his version of events. Mr Smith was advised to go back to the court and give them the additional evidence he had so in that way it would be available to all the parties for the reconvened hearing. He said he would walk to the court straight away and do that. It was confirmed with him that he would be called again at 2:00 pm on 20 February.
Following Mr. Smith leaving the call the Tribunal called [Witness A] and got her to confirm that the statement she had provided to the landlord was her true correct version of the events and a couple of issues were clarified with her.
In summary her version of the events was: •She had been a tenant in the complex for a couple of years. At about 5:35 pm on 25 January she was sitting on the communal grass area by the fence outside her unit. She was patting another tenant’s cat. Mr Smith came out and started swearing and yelling at her telling her not to touch the cat then accused her of killing his tomato plants and poisoning his cat, none of which she said was true. •As he was yelling at her she stood up and Mr Smith punched her in the face with a closed fist and at full force. The punch connected with her mouth, nose and eye region. She was very shocked and distressed and went back inside her unit and locked her door. Mr Smith followed her to the unit and tried the door handle but he was unable to get inside. She then started feeling dizzy and fell down the wall and when she came to she was on the floor. She said she phoned 111 about 5.42 and phone records confirm this to be the case. The call log shows the police responded at 5.53 by text with an incident number. On [Witness B]’s return he went and asked Mr Smith why he had punched her and he admitted that he had punched her. As a result of the assault 3 teeth were broken or chipped, she may have broken her nose and her she suffered a black eye which is still painful. •The police had not attended so she called them back at 7:14pm on the same day and the phone log confirms this. She and [Witness B] went to the police station the following day to make statements and have photographs taken of her injuries. •On 26 January she stated Mr. Smith walked past her front window making a throat cutting gesture although nobody else would have witnessed this. She has real fears Mr Smith is going to assault her again in is too scared to walk outside of her unit.
Medical records show [Witness A] suffered a concussion injury and contusion of the face on the left side, the same side photographs presented by the landlord show she had a significant black eye.
Prior to leaving the call Mr Smith had stated he did not assault [Witness A] and did not admit this to [Witness B]. He also denied making any threatening gesture to her the following day. 20 February 2025
Just prior to the hearing it 2:00 PM on 20 February the Tribunal checked with the [city] Tenancy Tribunal to see if any documents had been submitted. At that stage none were showing on the file. [The landlord/s] were contacted at 2pm but two attempts to contact Mr. Smith were unsuccessful. The Tribunal was then contacted by the [city] Tribunal attaching a document that had been handed to the court about an hour before the hearing. A copy of this was provided to the Tribunal and the landlord. Two further attempts were made to contact Mr Smith without success so the proceeded in his absence.
The document Mr Smith had submitted was a handwritten note from a woman called [Witness C]. It stated that she had known Mr Smith for a few years and never seen him being mean to anyone. All he was trying to do was to live his life but he had people that interfered in his business and he just liked to be left alone but people are always going past and poisoning his garden. The person (presumably she is referring [Witness A]) had always been a problem to her.
The Tribunal is able to accept any evidence but gives appropriate weight to that. In this case [Witness C] was not present at the time the alleged assault took place and in essence was giving evidence that Mr Smith was not a mean person. This statement can be given little weight by the Tribunal in its exercise of weighing up whether [the landlord/s] have reached the required standard to establish an assault took place on 25 January 2025. Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, [Witness A] and [Witness B], I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Smith did assault [Witness A] on 25 January 2025 in an unprovoked way causing her injury and ongoing distress. As a result of the assault Mr Smith has now been charged with male v female common assault and is currently on bail pending a court hearing.
[The landlord/s] have therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and [the landlord/s] are not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the unprovoked assault as very serious and that after investigation the police consider there is sufficient basis to lay a charge. The fact that Mr Smith has been bailed to the tenancy address only two units apart from [Witness A] must also be taken into consideration.
[The landlord/s] produced a copy of a previous order of the Tribunal made on 1 March 2021, when Mr Smith was a tenant of the same landlord at a different address. That order terminated his tenancy on the basis he had assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbouring tenant. Mr Smith said that decision was totally wrong and it was not him that assaulted the neighbour. I note however there was no application for rehearing or appeal so the findings of the Tribunal stand.
Taking all of the above factors into account I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
[The landlord/s] sought suppression of their name and identifying details but confirmed they were not seeking suppression for the victim or the witness. As [the landlord/s] were successful, in their claim suppression is granted as requested.
Because [the landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153164 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153164 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions