What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5265788?

The tribunal order states: The application to terminate the tenancy of Christopher McCaskey is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5265788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265788?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11969678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5265788?

The tribunal order states: The application to terminate the tenancy of Christopher McCaskey is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5265788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265788?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11969678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60C Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265788 — 14-day notice

Order

The application to terminate the tenancy of Christopher McCaskey is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely by phone.
A representative of Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing as did the tenant. One of the victims of the alleged threatened assault Ms K also attended remotely to give evidence.
KO has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. KO relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) to terminate the tenancy on the basis that Mr McCasker threatened to kill his neighbour and her grandson.
Mr McCasker occupies a 2 bedroomed property sharing a driveway with 4 other KO tenanted properties, with his property located in front of the affected neighbour. The tenancy commenced on 21 February 2022.
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. Landlord’s evidence/submissions
KO presented their submission based on the police reports from both from Ms K and her grandson and they also called Ms K to give oral evidence.
On 18 March 2025, at around 11:00pm, the neighbour’s grandson heard two gunshots being fired. He looked out his window and saw Mr McCasker in the shared driveway, holding a firearm with both hands, pointed directly at him. The grandson described the firearm to be 1 metre long.
Mr McCasker then spoke to the grandson and asked “Do you want to die? Are you not scared of dying? I’ll come and kill you right now”. The grandson then closed his window and informed his grandmother who is the tenant at the neighbouring property, of his interaction with Mr McCasker.
The neighbour then looked out the window and confirmed that Mr McCasker was holding a firearm while walking on the shared driveway. The neighbour believed that the firearm was a .22 long rifle. The neighbour saw that Mr McCasker was pointing the firearm in the air and discharged this 4 more times. The neighbour then contacted the Police to report the incident.
The neighbour went out the front door to confront Mr McCasker who she could see clearly. She asked Mr McCasker, “Who you gonna kill?” .Mr Mccasker discharged the firearm two more times, and responded to the neighbour, “I will kill you, I’m gonna kill you”. Mr McCasker repeated this to the neighbour 3 more times and then walked down the driveway back to his property.
Mr McCasker was arrested and placed before the courts for this incident. He was initially bailed to another address, returning to his home on 6 May 2025 on an evening time curfew.
KO said they had received previous complaints about Mr McCasker disturbing the neighbours peace and quiet and that he had threatened to kill the neighbours dogs and had threatened Ms K’s grandson a couple of times but there was no evidence of those complaints before the Tribunal. Ms K’s oral evidence
At the commencement of her evidence, Ms K outlined events that had taken place earlier in the evening and had ended with 3 police officers coming to her home and accusing her of having an argument with her nephew and that she was hiding him which she said was not true at all. The police eventually left but a relative she had been with remained at the property with her.
Later in the evening she saw Mr McCasker go out in his truck and then return a bit later and he had his stereo on very loudly. She then saw Mr McCasker shooting up a gun in the driveway. She said he had threatened to kill her grandson who lived with her. She and her relative walked outside and Mr McCasker was just standing right in front of them. She asked him what he was doing, and he made no reply and didn’t do anything then he went back to his house. Her relative tried to ring the police but it took some time for them to arrive. She had sent her grandson to the neighbour’s house and when the police came they were all required to go out on the street and were there for some time before they were allowed back inside. Mr McCasker was arrested.
Following the event the police advised KO that a gun had been confiscated and there was no further danger to KO staff.
As the oral evidence given by Ms K explaining the events of the evening was significantly different to the police report, the Tribunal confirmed with Ms K that her evidence was that Mr McCasker made no response to her enquiry about what he was doing. No threats were made to her and the he did nothing but then walked back to his house.
Ms K said Mr McCasker has ruined her life over the year he had been in the property and she had to look out at his house all the time as it was in direct line with her kitchen window. She said he knows how to “work the system”, that he is mentally unstable and unpredictable. Grandson
Ms K said that she talked with her grandson, who is 14, and he did not want to come on the phone hearing to give his version of the events and would only talk face to face . Given the nature of this application and that there would be significant delay in being able to adjourn to a face to face hearing the Tribunal took into account the police report which Ms K’s grandson gave to them. Mr McCasker
Mr McCasker was given the opportunity to respond to the claim.
He stated that he had a court case involving the charges on 30 June 2025 and hence he was not going to make any comment and he repeated this more than once during the hearing. He believed it was not appropriate that the Tribunal was considering this application when his court case was going to be heard and the Judge was the one that had the authority to make any decisions, not the adjudicator.
Mr McCasker said he could not recall what the charges were, but he acknowledged he had possessed a gun, but that was not the case now and he was abiding by his bail conditions. The police had not advised KO of what charges had been laid.
It was explained to Mr McCasker, as set earlier in this decision, that the District Court have held 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 and that this was therefore his opportunity to give his version of the events that occurred on that evening. He declined to provide any comment.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: (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))]. Findings
The allegation that Mr McCasker threatened to kill both Ms K and her grandson is particularly serious involving alleged criminal offending and hence the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden of proof that on the balance of probabilities Mr McCasker did make these threats.
I must consider the evidence that has put before me in this hearing. The Tribunal may receive any evidence that is put before it, however must consider the wight that can be given to it.
In this case the Tribunal had the benefit of reading the statement Ms K and the grandson had made to the police. It also had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from Ms K. Her oral evidence was contrary to the statement she had given to the police, even though the Tribunal confirmed on more than one occasion that the oral evidence she was giving was correct and that Mr McCasker did not say he was going to kill her and in fact said nothing at all.
While the grandson’s statement to the police said that Mr McCasker threatened to kill him, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing oral evidence so that the events of the night could be confirmed or not.
Taking these factors into account and the serious of the allegation requiring a sufficiently high standard of evidence, the Tribunal finds that the claim that Mr McCasker threatened to kill Ms K and her grandson has not been established to the required level.
This finding is made on the basis of the evidence that was before the Tribunal, and is totally independent of any findings the District Court may make after considering the charges laid against Mr McCasker.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265788 — 14-day notice at 60C Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265788 — 14-day notice at 60C Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions