What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229551?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Asha Sawyer at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys

How much money was awarded in case 5229551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229551?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229551?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Asha Sawyer at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys

How much money was awarded in case 5229551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229551?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229551 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Asha Sawyer at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011 is terminated, and possession is granted to 360 Property Management Limited - As Agent For Michael Stribling & Steven Hall, immediately.

Asha Sawyer must pay 360 Property Management Limited - As Agent For Michael Stribling & Steven Hall $27 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held by telephone. The property manager represented the landlord at the hearing. The tenant was properly served but she did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault and for disposal of goods. The landlord said almost all the belongings have already been removed by the tenant’s family.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault on 5 April 2025. The questions I have to consider are: • Was there an assault? • Should I use my discretion?

Was there an assault?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex, or any neighbour.

The person who was said he was assaulted gave evidence as a witness. He is both a neighbour and someone who lives in the same complex. He provided a written statement which sets out how he was assaulted by the tenant on 5 April 2025. He said the tenant cut his hand with a piece of glass. At the hearing he confirmed the statement as true and correct. My understanding from the property manager is that the tenant is currently in prison because of the assault.

The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. I find it is most likely the tenant assaulted the neighbour.

Should I use my discretion?

Section 55(2) RTA says “The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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 78A is not relevant here.

The District Court in Haitana v Housing New Zealand Corporation considered a situation where a tenant had been convicted of an assault and the landlord subsequently applied for termination of the tenancy in the Tenancy Tribunal. The decision was appealed to the District Court. The Judge said - “In essence, ... the fact that a breach may not be capable of remedy, i.e. in the context of an assault which has been committed, is not determinative in the section 55(2) context. ... the preferable interpretation of section 55(2) is to put aside a breach which cannot be remedied and then consider the issue of termination by reference to the other two preconditions for the exercise of the discretion, i.e. compensation, if any, to the landlord and the likelihood or otherwise of any further similar breach by the tenant.” See CIV-2006-009-003335, DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004

I am not exercising my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. Further, the tenant did not attend the hearing, which means I have no way of assessing if there is a likelihood of another assault. However, given the serious nature of the injury, the risk of another assault is too great. I am persuaded this tenancy should end. Other orders

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Asha Sawyer at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011 is terminated, and possession is granted to 360 Property Management Limited - As Agent For Michael Stribling & Steven Hall, immediately.
Asha Sawyer must pay 360 Property Management Limited - As Agent For Michael Stribling & Steven Hall $27 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held by telephone. The property manager represented the landlord at the hearing. The tenant was properly served but she did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault and for disposal of goods. The landlord said almost all the belongings have already been removed by the tenant’s family.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault on 5 April 2025. The questions I have to consider are: • Was there an assault? • Should I use my discretion?

Was there an assault?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex, or any neighbour.
The person who was said he was assaulted gave evidence as a witness. He is both a neighbour and someone who lives in the same complex. He provided a written statement which sets out how he was assaulted by the tenant on 5 April 2025. He said the tenant cut his hand with a piece of glass. At the hearing he confirmed the statement as true and correct. My understanding from the property manager is that the tenant is currently in prison because of the assault.
The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. I find it is most likely the tenant assaulted the neighbour.

Should I use my discretion?

Section 55(2) RTA says “The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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 78A is not relevant here.
The District Court in Haitana v Housing New Zealand Corporation considered a situation where a tenant had been convicted of an assault and the landlord subsequently applied for termination of the tenancy in the Tenancy Tribunal. The decision was appealed to the District Court. The Judge said - “In essence, ... the fact that a breach may not be capable of remedy, i.e. in the context of an assault which has been committed, is not determinative in the section 55(2) context. ... the preferable interpretation of section 55(2) is to put aside a breach which cannot be remedied and then consider the issue of termination by reference to the other two preconditions for the exercise of the discretion, i.e. compensation, if any, to the landlord and the likelihood or otherwise of any further similar breach by the tenant.” See CIV-2006-009-003335, DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004
I am not exercising my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. Further, the tenant did not attend the hearing, which means I have no way of assessing if there is a likelihood of another assault. However, given the serious nature of the injury, the risk of another assault is too great. I am persuaded this tenancy should end. Other orders
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229551 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229551 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions