What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223511?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tiara Walsh at Unit/Flat Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 5223511?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223511?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11717950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223511?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tiara Walsh at Unit/Flat Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 5223511?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223511?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11717950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223511 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223511 — 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

The tenancy of Tiara Walsh at Unit/Flat Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053, Veronica Place is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust at 4pm on Thursday 17 April 2025.
Tiara Walsh will pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the sum of $27.00 immediately. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing as did Ms Walsh. Mr T and Mr K also attended to give evidence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a unit, one of 37 units managed by Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) in the Veronica Place complex. The tenancy commenced on 29 April 2021. Ms Walsh’ partner, Brooklyn, also resides at the premises although he is not a named tenant on the agreement.
As the applicant, the landlord 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. Landlords evidence
The landlord claims that on 17 March 2025 Brooklyn, Ms Walsh’s partner, assaulted another tenant in the complex. He and Ms Walsh had driven from one end of the complex to a shared carpark outside Mr T’s unit. There was also a witness to this incident. Although the police were called at the time, their investigations are ongoing and at this stage no charges have been laid.
The landlord also stated that over the last year 3 notices of antisocial behaviour have been served on Ms Walsh regarding the behaviour in the complex of Brooklyn. A 14-day notice for overcrowding has also been served. Ms Walsh’s tenancy agreement only allows for one occupant. The Manager also said they had been involved in conversations with Ms Wash, explaining that the behaviour of Brooklyn, was putting her tenancy at risk. Mr T’s evidence
The alleged victim, Mr T gave evidence as follows.
On the night of 1 6 March 2025, he put a post on Facebook where he had written “ For the majority of you, you are all a bunch of disappointments, fow vibrating, lazy, unheaftliy, unmotivated, uninspired ungodly disappointments. Wake up”. This post was not directed to anyone individually.
The next day, 17 March, he was sitting in his chair in his unit alone and next minute Brooklyn burst into his unit through the door. He knew Brooklyn.
As he walked into the unit Brooklyn was saying, "What the f... are you talking about on Facebook?" As he walked in, he kicked over the dog bowl of water and a pot plant.
Mr T stood up and Brooklyn took a swing at him using his left hand and trying to punch him and also trying to grab his singlet. He continued swinging trying to punch him about 3 times although none of the punches connected.
Brooklyn started to walk backwards towards the door with Mr T following him. He saw Brooklyn’s car outside his unit with Ms Walsh standing next to the car. He tried to swing another punch at Mr T again.
As he got to get in the car he said “You are a paedaphile, sleep with one eye open because I am going to kill you”.
Brooklyn and Ms Walsh got into the car. At this point Mr T was standing in the shared parking area. Brooklyn reversed back then drove the car towards Mr T causing to him to have to jump back on the verge to escape being hit.
The police were called.
Being fearful for his life, Mr T is now being accommodated elsewhere temporarily while this is resolved.
These events have had a traumatic effect on him. Mr K’s evidence
A witness to these events, Mr K, also gave evidence.
Mr K was parked in the shared car park outside Mr T’s unit. It is very close to Mr T’s unit. He heard a person yelling in Mr T’s unit and when he looked into Mr T’s lounge he saw Brooklyn. He knew Brooklyn as he drives a couple of different cars loudly around the complex and lives with Ms Walsh.
He was able to see through Mr T’s big lounge window, and could see Brooklyn face to face with Mr T. He could also hear Brooklyn yelling at Mr T, then saw Brooklyn swing punches at him. There were several punches, but he wasn’t sure if any of his punches connected.
Brooklyn came outside and Mr T was behind him. Brooklyn went towards his car, and he said, "You better sleep with one eye open cunt, cause I will kill you in your sleep".
He then got into his car and left the complex. Ms Walsh’s evidence
Ms Walsh listened to the evidence of Mr T and Mr K and had no questions for them. She acknowledged that she was outside by the car when the alleged events occurred in Mr T ‘s unit and agreed with the events as outlined by Mr T and Mr K.
She said she was currently in Dunedin after a family bereavement but when she returned to Christchurch she would be ending her tenancy. There was no fixed date for that. She confirmed that she and Brooklyn were still in a relationship, although they were both away at the moment.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) 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 occupier 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))].
Section 41(1) RTA states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
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 Christchurch, 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. Analysis
I have carefully considered the landlord’s submissions, and the evidence of Mr T, Mr K and Ms Walsh and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Brooklyn threatened to assault Mr T on 17 March 2025 by attempting to punch him of at least 3 occasions and threatened to kill him. While Brooklyn was not a named tenant, he was in the premises with Ms Walsh’s permission and as such she is responsible for his actions, as if they were committed by Ms Walsh herself
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(iv) 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 is 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 threatened assaults and the threat to kill that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on Mr T, fearing for his life. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Brooklyn will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he return to the complex. While Ms Walsh has said she is planning to end the tenancy there is no fixed date for that.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
Because OCHT has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression was not sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223511 — 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

The tenancy of Tiara Walsh at Unit/Flat Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053, Veronica Place is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust at 4pm on Thursday 17 April 2025.
Tiara Walsh will pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the sum of $27.00 immediately. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing as did Ms Walsh. Mr T and Mr K also attended to give evidence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a unit, one of 37 units managed by Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) in the Veronica Place complex. The tenancy commenced on 29 April 2021. Ms Walsh’ partner, Brooklyn, also resides at the premises although he is not a named tenant on the agreement.
As the applicant, the landlord 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. Landlords evidence
The landlord claims that on 17 March 2025 Brooklyn, Ms Walsh’s partner, assaulted another tenant in the complex. He and Ms Walsh had driven from one end of the complex to a shared carpark outside Mr T’s unit. There was also a witness to this incident. Although the police were called at the time, their investigations are ongoing and at this stage no charges have been laid.
The landlord also stated that over the last year 3 notices of antisocial behaviour have been served on Ms Walsh regarding the behaviour in the complex of Brooklyn. A 14-day notice for overcrowding has also been served. Ms Walsh’s tenancy agreement only allows for one occupant. The Manager also said they had been involved in conversations with Ms Wash, explaining that the behaviour of Brooklyn, was putting her tenancy at risk. Mr T’s evidence
The alleged victim, Mr T gave evidence as follows.
On the night of 1 6 March 2025, he put a post on Facebook where he had written “ For the majority of you, you are all a bunch of disappointments, fow vibrating, lazy, unheaftliy, unmotivated, uninspired ungodly disappointments. Wake up”. This post was not directed to anyone individually.
The next day, 17 March, he was sitting in his chair in his unit alone and next minute Brooklyn burst into his unit through the door. He knew Brooklyn.
As he walked into the unit Brooklyn was saying, "What the f... are you talking about on Facebook?" As he walked in, he kicked over the dog bowl of water and a pot plant.
Mr T stood up and Brooklyn took a swing at him using his left hand and trying to punch him and also trying to grab his singlet. He continued swinging trying to punch him about 3 times although none of the punches connected.
Brooklyn started to walk backwards towards the door with Mr T following him. He saw Brooklyn’s car outside his unit with Ms Walsh standing next to the car. He tried to swing another punch at Mr T again.
As he got to get in the car he said “You are a paedaphile, sleep with one eye open because I am going to kill you”.
Brooklyn and Ms Walsh got into the car. At this point Mr T was standing in the shared parking area. Brooklyn reversed back then drove the car towards Mr T causing to him to have to jump back on the verge to escape being hit.
The police were called.
Being fearful for his life, Mr T is now being accommodated elsewhere temporarily while this is resolved.
These events have had a traumatic effect on him. Mr K’s evidence
A witness to these events, Mr K, also gave evidence.
Mr K was parked in the shared car park outside Mr T’s unit. It is very close to Mr T’s unit. He heard a person yelling in Mr T’s unit and when he looked into Mr T’s lounge he saw Brooklyn. He knew Brooklyn as he drives a couple of different cars loudly around the complex and lives with Ms Walsh.
He was able to see through Mr T’s big lounge window, and could see Brooklyn face to face with Mr T. He could also hear Brooklyn yelling at Mr T, then saw Brooklyn swing punches at him. There were several punches, but he wasn’t sure if any of his punches connected.
Brooklyn came outside and Mr T was behind him. Brooklyn went towards his car, and he said, "You better sleep with one eye open cunt, cause I will kill you in your sleep".
He then got into his car and left the complex. Ms Walsh’s evidence
Ms Walsh listened to the evidence of Mr T and Mr K and had no questions for them. She acknowledged that she was outside by the car when the alleged events occurred in Mr T ‘s unit and agreed with the events as outlined by Mr T and Mr K.
She said she was currently in Dunedin after a family bereavement but when she returned to Christchurch she would be ending her tenancy. There was no fixed date for that. She confirmed that she and Brooklyn were still in a relationship, although they were both away at the moment.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) 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 occupier 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))].
Section 41(1) RTA states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
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 Christchurch, 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. Analysis
I have carefully considered the landlord’s submissions, and the evidence of Mr T, Mr K and Ms Walsh and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Brooklyn threatened to assault Mr T on 17 March 2025 by attempting to punch him of at least 3 occasions and threatened to kill him. While Brooklyn was not a named tenant, he was in the premises with Ms Walsh’s permission and as such she is responsible for his actions, as if they were committed by Ms Walsh herself
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(iv) 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 is 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 threatened assaults and the threat to kill that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on Mr T, fearing for his life. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Brooklyn will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he return to the complex. While Ms Walsh has said she is planning to end the tenancy there is no fixed date for that.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
Because OCHT has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression was not sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223511 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223511 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 14, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions