What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301656 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 5301656?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301656?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12577881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301656 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 5301656?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301656?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12577881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301656 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Japeth represented the landlord. The tenant did not answer the calls to his phone.
The tenant lives in a complex. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant caused a large amount of damage to another unit in the complex. This damage happened on 1 July 2025. I have been provided with photos taken from a surveillance camera belonging to the landlord and I have a written statement from the property manager identifying the tenant as the person who broke windows and doors in [unit number redacted] with a cricket bat. I have not heard from the tenant. I am persuaded the tenant caused the damage.
The application was originally made under section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has caused substantial damage to the “premises”. The tenancy premises as described in the tenancy agreement are [unit number redacted]. The damage was to [unit number redacted]. I find that s 55 does not allow me to end the tenancy because of damage to another unit, even if the unit is in the same complex.
I note for the sake of completeness that an application could not have been brought under anti-social behaviour provisions either because that requires anti- social behaviour on three separate occasions.

Can I end the tenancy?

A claim was made in the alterative that the tenancy should end because of a breach of the RTA. Section 56(1) RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
I have considered the application to end the tenancy because there was a breach of the tenant’s obligations under the RTA, specifically a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA, which provides that a tenant shall not cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. This is the case here, because the impact of the tenant’s behaviour on the neighbours and other tenants living in the complex cannot be undone.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. I find the breach of peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment on 1 July 2025 was serious and it was not a breach capable of remedy. This means the landlord was not required to serve a 14 day notice.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In Vincent Dean Huff the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These include: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Working my way through the factors, this tenancy started in February 2021. The landlord has not issued any breach notices for breach of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. There have been no further issues with the tenant since he caused the damage on 1 July 2025, which was over three months ago. There is no history of repeated warnings during the tenancy.
The tenant has not caused any problems since 1 July 2025. The context for the damage is that on 1 July 2025 the tenant in [Unit number redacted] threatened the residents at the complex with a gun. The police were called.
The breach must have been deliberately committed. The tenant went to [Unit number redacted] with a cricket bat and caused significant damage to a number of windows and a door. The gravity of the breach is such that ending the tenancy would usually be the correct response.
Having considered the evidence and the submissions I am not persuaded the tenancy should end. It seems most likely to me that the tenant’s outburst was a one off incident and was most likely connected to the serious threats made on the same day by the tenant in [unit number redacted].
The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

The landlord has made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is not allowed. The landlord is a social housing provider and I find there is public interest in social housing. Also, the landlord is not the most successful party. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant because publishing his name could be prejudicial. I have also supressed the address of the tenancy premises as publishing this could identify the tenant.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Japeth represented the landlord. The tenant did not answer the calls to his phone.
The tenant lives in a complex. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant caused a large amount of damage to another unit in the complex. This damage happened on 1 July 2025. I have been provided with photos taken from a surveillance camera belonging to the landlord and I have a written statement from the property manager identifying the tenant as the person who broke windows and doors in [unit number redacted] with a cricket bat. I have not heard from the tenant. I am persuaded the tenant caused the damage.
The application was originally made under section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has caused substantial damage to the “premises”. The tenancy premises as described in the tenancy agreement are [unit number redacted]. The damage was to [unit number redacted]. I find that s 55 does not allow me to end the tenancy because of damage to another unit, even if the unit is in the same complex.
I note for the sake of completeness that an application could not have been brought under anti-social behaviour provisions either because that requires anti- social behaviour on three separate occasions.

Can I end the tenancy?

A claim was made in the alterative that the tenancy should end because of a breach of the RTA. Section 56(1) RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
I have considered the application to end the tenancy because there was a breach of the tenant’s obligations under the RTA, specifically a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA, which provides that a tenant shall not cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. This is the case here, because the impact of the tenant’s behaviour on the neighbours and other tenants living in the complex cannot be undone.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. I find the breach of peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment on 1 July 2025 was serious and it was not a breach capable of remedy. This means the landlord was not required to serve a 14 day notice.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In Vincent Dean Huff the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These include: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Working my way through the factors, this tenancy started in February 2021. The landlord has not issued any breach notices for breach of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. There have been no further issues with the tenant since he caused the damage on 1 July 2025, which was over three months ago. There is no history of repeated warnings during the tenancy.
The tenant has not caused any problems since 1 July 2025. The context for the damage is that on 1 July 2025 the tenant in [Unit number redacted] threatened the residents at the complex with a gun. The police were called.
The breach must have been deliberately committed. The tenant went to [Unit number redacted] with a cricket bat and caused significant damage to a number of windows and a door. The gravity of the breach is such that ending the tenancy would usually be the correct response.
Having considered the evidence and the submissions I am not persuaded the tenancy should end. It seems most likely to me that the tenant’s outburst was a one off incident and was most likely connected to the serious threats made on the same day by the tenant in [unit number redacted].
The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

The landlord has made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is not allowed. The landlord is a social housing provider and I find there is public interest in social housing. Also, the landlord is not the most successful party. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant because publishing his name could be prejudicial. I have also supressed the address of the tenancy premises as publishing this could identify the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301656 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301656 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can I end the tenancy?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can I end the tenancy?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions