Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5328419 — 14-day notice
Decided 13 Nov 2025 · Published 13 Nov 2025 · Application 5328419
- 14-day notice
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
- The tenancy of Mark Henare Dehar at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
- Mark Henare Dehar will pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $28.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Two representatives of [The landlord/s] attended the hearing conducted by phone. The tenant is currently in custody at the Christchurch Men’s Prison. The documents relating to this application were sent to the tenant at the prison. On 29 August 2025 the Operations System Adviser advised the landlord that the documents would be handed to the tenant that morning and a bit later in the morning he confirmed the number the Tribunal could call so that the tenant could be joined to the hearing. At the time of the hearing the Tribunal called the number and had no response. They then tried a further time and again there was no response. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenant.
- [The landlord/s] also called two witnesses to give evidence, the alleged victim Ms K and a neighbour, Mr L.
- 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) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
- The tenant is a 39 year old who occupies a 1 bedroomed unit, in the complex. The unit is one of 4 conjoined units with each unit having its own backdoor to a shared outside space which also includes clotheslines. The tenancy commenced on 29 May 2020.
- 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
- On 17 August 2025 around 10am Ms K was hanging out her washing and was attacked by the tenant. He attacked her from behind throwing her to the ground causing substantial injuries and rendering her unconscious for a period. She was admitted to hospital where she stayed for two days and has suffered ongoing impact from these injuries.
- The tenant is an immediate neighbour of Ms K. The tenant was arrested three days later by the police while staff of [the landlord/s] were present and has been charged with injuring with intent to injure under section 189 (2) Crimes Act 1961. The police are also likely to lay further charges, but the landlord is not aware of those at this stage. He is currently in custody at Christchurch Men’s Prison,
- [The landlord/s] stated it was the most serious assault that they have ever encountered. Evidence of Ms K
- Ms K had provided a written statement to [the landlord/s] outlining the events of the day and confirmed in oral evidence that what was stated was a true account.
- Ms K is 72 years old and has resided in the complex for almost 22 years and knows most of her neighbours.
- The tenant has behaved strangely in the past giving her flowers and chocolates and then on other occasions acting in a nasty way to her.
- On 17 August 2025 around 10am she was hanging her washing on the line when the tenant came up behind her and said something inappropriate. He got her on the ground onto the shingle cutting the side of her head and she had shingle in her mouth. She recalls his arm pressing down on her around her neck and then she became unconscious although she is unsure for how long. She is unsure if he strangled her with his hands. Oncoming around she headed straight for her other immediate neighbour who called the police and the ambulance.
- As a result of the attack, she stated she has fractured ribs, cuts to her head and face, a large amount of bruising around her neck and has concussion and has been told she cannot drive for a month. While at the hospital she was examined by a Police Doctor who is a specialist in strangulation.
- Ms K has been traumatised by this attack and feels very unsafe.
- The Tribunal viewed photographs of Ms K taken by her neighbour on the day of the alleged assault and others that were taken by [the landlord/s] representatives 3 days later. The photographs support Ms K’s accounts of her injuries. Evidence of Mr. L
- Mr L stated he had resided at the complex for about 10 years and was a neighbour of Ms K.
- On Sunday 17 August 2025 at approximately 10.15am he was at home, and he heard a noise coming from the bathroom. He called out and Ms K answered weakly. She was in the basin trying to wash the blood off her face, was very upset, was in shock and could hardly talk.
- Mr L took a photograph of the blood all over her face and Ms K said the tenant had his hands around her neck and he pushed her to the ground and put his arms around her throat. He called the police and the ambulance.
- Mr L said he has found the tenant’s behaviour to be erratic on occasions. Termination 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 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 – a. ... b. (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:... c. (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: 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))].
- Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: a. [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
- Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, Ms K and Mr L, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dehar did assault Ms K on 17 August 2025, by attacking her from behind pushing her to the ground causing significant injuries and attempting to strangle her.
- 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 assault that took place as one of the most serious to come before the Tribunal. It has had a significant impact on Ms K, physically and mentally, and will continue to do so. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Dehar will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he be returned to the complex in the future.
- 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 [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.