What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248231?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anthony Peehikura and Marina Ngatauerua Wharemate at Unit

How much money was awarded in case 5248231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248231?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12072286-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248231?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anthony Peehikura and Marina Ngatauerua Wharemate at Unit

How much money was awarded in case 5248231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248231?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12072286-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 1, 19 Papa Totara Loop, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248231 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Anthony Peehikura and Marina Ngatauerua Wharemate at Unit 1, 19 Papa Totara Loop, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 12.00 noon on Friday 11 July 2025.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 6 June 2024 sets out the background to this application and the reasons for the adjournment.
The second hearing took place in Whangarei today, 4 July 2025. Ms Perese attended the hearing on behalf of Kāinga Ora. There was no appearance by Mr Peehikura or Ms Wharemate.

Should the proceedings be concluded in the absence of the tenants?

The proceedings were adjourned to allow the tenants the opportunity to review Kāinga Ora’s video evidence, to take legal advice if they wished to, and to have legal representation at the second hearing.
The videos were given to the tenants on a USB drive at the end of the last hearing on 4 June 2025.
Since then, the tenants have not contacted the Tribunal, and their only contact with Kāinga Ora has been to provide a new email address.
Notice of today’s hearing was posted to the tenants on 23 June 2025. The Tribunal sent text reminders of the hearing to the tenants, and Tenancy Services also sent tent text reminders.
The hearing was scheduled to start at 9.30am. When the tenants did not appear, the Registrar attempted to phone both tenants at 9.45am. Neither tenant answered the calls.
I am satisfied that the tenants had notice of the hearing.
I elected to proceed and determine the application on the grounds that: a. The tenants had ample opportunity to seek advice and provide further submissions or argument either in writing before the hearing or in person at the hearing today. b. The tenants could have requested an adjournment if they needed more time, or if they were unavailable for the hearing, but no such request was made. c. The Tenancy Tribunal has a mandate to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants in a swift and expeditious manner, relatively free from procedural complexity. 1 Findings
The Tribunal must make an order terminating a tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that tenant assaulted “any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part”. 2
The Tribunal may refuse to make an order for termination, but only if: a. The breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy); and b. The landlord been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and c. It is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach. 3
At the first hearing, Mr Peehikura said that: a. He did not headbutt the neighbour (as was alleged) but he did push him. 1 Hooper v Bushill [2024] NZHC 1070 2 Section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 55(2) RTA b. He did so because the neighbour, who is taller than Mr Peehikura was standing over him and he was worried that the neighbour might headbutt him. He has a head injury, so he could not risk such an attack. c. The neighbour was being extremely verbally aggressive and threatening.
Mr Peehikura had not seen Kāinga Ora’s video recordings when he gave evidence at the 4 June hearing. Kāinga Ora showed the videos at the hearing, but there was limited opportunity for Mr Peehikura to view and review them carefully.
I have reviewed the video evidence since the last hearing. The recording comes from two static cameras, one covering the car park, and the other the entrance door (with part of the car park visible).
The videos show two incidents of physical confrontation between Mr Peehikura and the neighbour.
The first is at 14:48:14, and is visible on the car park camera. The two men are standing face-to-face at close range. Mr Peehikura then lunges at the neighbour with his head. Both men then throw punches.
The second is at 14:48:59. Both cameras capture this incident. The neighbour approaches Mr Peehikura and appears to show Mr Peehikura something on his phone. Mr Peehikura then pushes the neighbour forcefully with both hands. Both men then throw punches.
An assault is the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to another person. 4
The use of reasonable force in self-defence or defence of another is not an assault.
I am satisfied that: a. Mr Peehikura attempted to, and did in fact, apply force to his neighbour on 27 March 2025. b. Mr Peehikura’s actions were not the use of reasonable force in self- defence because: i. Mr Peehikura initiated the assault in respect of both incidents described above. ii. Mr Peehikura’s argument that he acted pre-emptively to prevent the risk of a head injury is not persuasive given that:
Mr Peehikura himself lunged at his neighbour with his head, attempting to headbutt him. 4 Section 2, Crimes Act 1961
There was ample opportunity for Mr Peehikura to de-escalate and avoid the confrontation entirely. Mr Peehikura chose to not do that.
Therefore I find that it is proven that Mr Peehikura assaulted his neighbour and the claim for termination is made out.
I am unable to refuse to make the order for termination because: a. The breach is not capable of being remedied; and b. I cannot be satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Peehikura will commit any further breach. It seems that Mr Peehikura has a strong, but legally incorrect, view about his right to use that carpark and it is something that could continue to be a trigger for him.
The tenancy will terminate at 12.00 noon on Friday 11 July 2025.

Order

The tenancy of Anthony Peehikura and Marina Ngatauerua Wharemate at Unit 1, 19 Papa Totara Loop, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 12.00 noon on Friday 11 July 2025.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 6 June 2024 sets out the background to this application and the reasons for the adjournment.
The second hearing took place in Whangarei today, 4 July 2025. Ms Perese attended the hearing on behalf of Kāinga Ora. There was no appearance by Mr Peehikura or Ms Wharemate.

Should the proceedings be concluded in the absence of the tenants?

The proceedings were adjourned to allow the tenants the opportunity to review Kāinga Ora’s video evidence, to take legal advice if they wished to, and to have legal representation at the second hearing.
The videos were given to the tenants on a USB drive at the end of the last hearing on 4 June 2025.
Since then, the tenants have not contacted the Tribunal, and their only contact with Kāinga Ora has been to provide a new email address.
Notice of today’s hearing was posted to the tenants on 23 June 2025. The Tribunal sent text reminders of the hearing to the tenants, and Tenancy Services also sent tent text reminders.
The hearing was scheduled to start at 9.30am. When the tenants did not appear, the Registrar attempted to phone both tenants at 9.45am. Neither tenant answered the calls.
I am satisfied that the tenants had notice of the hearing.
I elected to proceed and determine the application on the grounds that: a. The tenants had ample opportunity to seek advice and provide further submissions or argument either in writing before the hearing or in person at the hearing today. b. The tenants could have requested an adjournment if they needed more time, or if they were unavailable for the hearing, but no such request was made. c. The Tenancy Tribunal has a mandate to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants in a swift and expeditious manner, relatively free from procedural complexity. 1 Findings
The Tribunal must make an order terminating a tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that tenant assaulted “any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part”. 2
The Tribunal may refuse to make an order for termination, but only if: a. The breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy); and b. The landlord been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and c. It is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach. 3
At the first hearing, Mr Peehikura said that: a. He did not headbutt the neighbour (as was alleged) but he did push him. 1 Hooper v Bushill [2024] NZHC 1070 2 Section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 55(2) RTA b. He did so because the neighbour, who is taller than Mr Peehikura was standing over him and he was worried that the neighbour might headbutt him. He has a head injury, so he could not risk such an attack. c. The neighbour was being extremely verbally aggressive and threatening.
Mr Peehikura had not seen Kāinga Ora’s video recordings when he gave evidence at the 4 June hearing. Kāinga Ora showed the videos at the hearing, but there was limited opportunity for Mr Peehikura to view and review them carefully.
I have reviewed the video evidence since the last hearing. The recording comes from two static cameras, one covering the car park, and the other the entrance door (with part of the car park visible).
The videos show two incidents of physical confrontation between Mr Peehikura and the neighbour.
The first is at 14:48:14, and is visible on the car park camera. The two men are standing face-to-face at close range. Mr Peehikura then lunges at the neighbour with his head. Both men then throw punches.
The second is at 14:48:59. Both cameras capture this incident. The neighbour approaches Mr Peehikura and appears to show Mr Peehikura something on his phone. Mr Peehikura then pushes the neighbour forcefully with both hands. Both men then throw punches.
An assault is the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to another person. 4
The use of reasonable force in self-defence or defence of another is not an assault.
I am satisfied that: a. Mr Peehikura attempted to, and did in fact, apply force to his neighbour on 27 March 2025. b. Mr Peehikura’s actions were not the use of reasonable force in self- defence because: i. Mr Peehikura initiated the assault in respect of both incidents described above. ii. Mr Peehikura’s argument that he acted pre-emptively to prevent the risk of a head injury is not persuasive given that:
Mr Peehikura himself lunged at his neighbour with his head, attempting to headbutt him. 4 Section 2, Crimes Act 1961
There was ample opportunity for Mr Peehikura to de-escalate and avoid the confrontation entirely. Mr Peehikura chose to not do that.
Therefore I find that it is proven that Mr Peehikura assaulted his neighbour and the claim for termination is made out.
I am unable to refuse to make the order for termination because: a. The breach is not capable of being remedied; and b. I cannot be satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Peehikura will commit any further breach. It seems that Mr Peehikura has a strong, but legally incorrect, view about his right to use that carpark and it is something that could continue to be a trigger for him.
The tenancy will terminate at 12.00 noon on Friday 11 July 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248231 — 14-day notice at Unit 1, 19 Papa Totara Loop, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248231 — 14-day notice at Unit 1, 19 Papa Totara Loop, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the proceedings be concluded in the absence of the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the proceedings be concluded in the absence of the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions