What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5338868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338868?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12428505-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5338868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338868?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12428505-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338868 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 21 September 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Woodbury. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for her in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

Has the tenant breached her obligations?

The tenant has breached their obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA which provides that a tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The landlord has provided evidence that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for consuming methamphetamine (meth). It is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes meth (ss7 and 12 MDA). The evidence is summarised as follows: a. Prior to this tenancy commencing on 26 September 2024, the landlord conducted a pre-tenancy baseline test to establish whether meth was present at the property on 20 September 2024. A composite of 5 samples was analysed and contained a meth level of 1.05 μg/100cm²; b. The presence of meth detected in the baseline test was negligible and below the “safe level” of 15 μg/100cm² which has been adopted by the District Court. 1 c. Almost 11 months after the tenancy started, the landlord had reason to suspect that the tenant may be using or permitting the use of meth at the premises and conducted further testing at the premises. 10 samples were collected on 13 August 2025 and individually analysed for the presence of meth. The analysis confirmed the presence of meth at elevated levels with one sample in the hall being 27 μg/100cm² well above the safe level of 15 μg/100cm². Two of the samples in the hall and kitchen were collected from the same areas tested in the pre-tenancy baseline test (in which a composite of 5 samples contained 1.05 μg/100cm²). The same kitchen sample result was 7.3 μg/100cm² and the same hall result was 27 μg/100cm², both significant increases. Of the 10 samples tested, five were above 1.5 μg/100cm² as follows: 1 See the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 (the Gluckman report). And Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 which adopted the Gluckman report. Hall27Bedroom A8.1 Bathroom A1.71Kitchen A7.3 Kitchen B6.6
The testing result in the hall of 27 μg/100cm² indicates that this area is contaminated and will require remediation, because it exceeds the safe level of 15 μg/100cm² adopted by the District Court.
The tenant is the sole tenant of the property and the tenancy agreement provides that only one person, the tenant, may live there. The tenancy agreement also contains a specific clause, warning the tenant that the premises may be tested for meth during the course of the tenancy.
Based on the evidence, I find it likely that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for the consumption of meth which is a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.

Is the breach capable of remedy such that the landlord must serve a breach notice?

Mr Woodbury confirmed when asked that the landlord considered that the breach by the tenant is one that cannot be remedied. Therefore, they did not serve a 14-day breach notice on her. In particular, he asserted that using the premises for an unlawful purpose and in circumstances where there is a high reading of meth which has contaminated the premises is not a breach capable of remedy. In other words the unlawful act once done cannot be undone.
There are District Court decisions which have proceeded on the basis that such a breach is not capable of remedy. 2 However, the District Court in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation 3 commented that a breach of a negative covenant is not always incapable of remedy. Judge Walker stated: [36] There is much public distaste of those who deal in drugs and even greater distaste for those who deal in methamphetamine. A house which is used by someone to consume cannabis or use any other drug is unlikely to attract attention from the neighbourhood. What happens inside is unlikely to be known. It does not create any stigma or bring the landlord into connection with an unlawful activity. While the consumption of cannabis by an occupant would be an unlawful activity I do not consider that such a breach would be incapable of remedy. Using the house for drug dealing is something quite different in character. [37] A house used for drug dealing must become known as a source of drugs ......drug users know where to come for a supply.... And so the house develops a reputation....” 2 See Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation, DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-000033, 19/3/2008, 3 Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation, DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-000110, 28/6/2010
Judge Walker concluded that it was necessary to consider the nature of the breach, and the tenant’s part in it, and knowledge of it. He also seemed to accept a line of cases that the mere fact that there is a breach of a negative covenant does not necessarily render the breach incapable of remedy. However, where the breach is one involving illegal or immoral use, the breach may be incapable of remedy where the use results in some sort of irremovable stigma attaching to the premises or other serious concerns.
I am satisfied in this case that the use of methamphetamine is a serious offence. By advising the tenant in the tenancy agreement that the premises might be tested for the presence of meth during the tenancy she was given warning that it would be treated seriously. That the meth use here has resulted in a high reading and contamination of the premises in one area is an aggravating factor. I accept the landlord’s observation as a Social Housing provider, where there is meth use, there tends to be a higher incidence of anti- social behaviour. These particular premises are located in a multi-storey apartment block occupied by other social housing tenants. Therefore, the use of meth has a potentially more serious impact on neighbouring tenants because of the behaviour of users. I accept that meth use in this situation is likely to come to the attention of the neighbourhood and create a stigma attached to the building and its other occupiers.
I consider that in these circumstances, the breach is not capable of remedy. Is the breach of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy?
Terangi sets out a number of factors that should be considered before the discretion to terminate under s56 is exercised such as: Whether the breach was deliberate or inadvertent; whether the breach involves an immoral/illegal use; whether the tenant will make good the breach and will fulfil their obligations in the future; the conduct of the landlord; the personal qualifications of the tenant; the financial position of the tenant; the position of third parties where relevant; the gravity of the breach; whether the breach has caused lasting damage to a landlord; and proportionality.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Therefore, it was not possible to consider factors such as: the circumstances of the breach and whether it was attributable to the tenant or whether she permitted someone else to use meth at the premises; the likelihood of further breaches; and any other personal circumstances of the tenant that should be considered.
However, the breach is serious and has resulted in a high level of meth that has certainly contaminated one area of the premises. The landlord must also consider the impact of meth use at the premises on the neighbouring tenants. In those circumstances, I find that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy and an order is made accordingly.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 21 September 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Woodbury. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for her in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

Has the tenant breached her obligations?

The tenant has breached their obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA which provides that a tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The landlord has provided evidence that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for consuming methamphetamine (meth). It is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes meth (ss7 and 12 MDA). The evidence is summarised as follows: a. Prior to this tenancy commencing on 26 September 2024, the landlord conducted a pre-tenancy baseline test to establish whether meth was present at the property on 20 September 2024. A composite of 5 samples was analysed and contained a meth level of 1.05 μg/100cm²; b. The presence of meth detected in the baseline test was negligible and below the “safe level” of 15 μg/100cm² which has been adopted by the District Court. 1 c. Almost 11 months after the tenancy started, the landlord had reason to suspect that the tenant may be using or permitting the use of meth at the premises and conducted further testing at the premises. 10 samples were collected on 13 August 2025 and individually analysed for the presence of meth. The analysis confirmed the presence of meth at elevated levels with one sample in the hall being 27 μg/100cm² well above the safe level of 15 μg/100cm². Two of the samples in the hall and kitchen were collected from the same areas tested in the pre-tenancy baseline test (in which a composite of 5 samples contained 1.05 μg/100cm²). The same kitchen sample result was 7.3 μg/100cm² and the same hall result was 27 μg/100cm², both significant increases. Of the 10 samples tested, five were above 1.5 μg/100cm² as follows: 1 See the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 (the Gluckman report). And Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 which adopted the Gluckman report. Hall27Bedroom A8.1 Bathroom A1.71Kitchen A7.3 Kitchen B6.6
The testing result in the hall of 27 μg/100cm² indicates that this area is contaminated and will require remediation, because it exceeds the safe level of 15 μg/100cm² adopted by the District Court.
The tenant is the sole tenant of the property and the tenancy agreement provides that only one person, the tenant, may live there. The tenancy agreement also contains a specific clause, warning the tenant that the premises may be tested for meth during the course of the tenancy.
Based on the evidence, I find it likely that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for the consumption of meth which is a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.

Is the breach capable of remedy such that the landlord must serve a breach notice?

Mr Woodbury confirmed when asked that the landlord considered that the breach by the tenant is one that cannot be remedied. Therefore, they did not serve a 14-day breach notice on her. In particular, he asserted that using the premises for an unlawful purpose and in circumstances where there is a high reading of meth which has contaminated the premises is not a breach capable of remedy. In other words the unlawful act once done cannot be undone.
There are District Court decisions which have proceeded on the basis that such a breach is not capable of remedy. 2 However, the District Court in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation 3 commented that a breach of a negative covenant is not always incapable of remedy. Judge Walker stated: [36] There is much public distaste of those who deal in drugs and even greater distaste for those who deal in methamphetamine. A house which is used by someone to consume cannabis or use any other drug is unlikely to attract attention from the neighbourhood. What happens inside is unlikely to be known. It does not create any stigma or bring the landlord into connection with an unlawful activity. While the consumption of cannabis by an occupant would be an unlawful activity I do not consider that such a breach would be incapable of remedy. Using the house for drug dealing is something quite different in character. [37] A house used for drug dealing must become known as a source of drugs ......drug users know where to come for a supply.... And so the house develops a reputation....” 2 See Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation, DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-000033, 19/3/2008, 3 Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation, DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-000110, 28/6/2010
Judge Walker concluded that it was necessary to consider the nature of the breach, and the tenant’s part in it, and knowledge of it. He also seemed to accept a line of cases that the mere fact that there is a breach of a negative covenant does not necessarily render the breach incapable of remedy. However, where the breach is one involving illegal or immoral use, the breach may be incapable of remedy where the use results in some sort of irremovable stigma attaching to the premises or other serious concerns.
I am satisfied in this case that the use of methamphetamine is a serious offence. By advising the tenant in the tenancy agreement that the premises might be tested for the presence of meth during the tenancy she was given warning that it would be treated seriously. That the meth use here has resulted in a high reading and contamination of the premises in one area is an aggravating factor. I accept the landlord’s observation as a Social Housing provider, where there is meth use, there tends to be a higher incidence of anti- social behaviour. These particular premises are located in a multi-storey apartment block occupied by other social housing tenants. Therefore, the use of meth has a potentially more serious impact on neighbouring tenants because of the behaviour of users. I accept that meth use in this situation is likely to come to the attention of the neighbourhood and create a stigma attached to the building and its other occupiers.
I consider that in these circumstances, the breach is not capable of remedy. Is the breach of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy?
Terangi sets out a number of factors that should be considered before the discretion to terminate under s56 is exercised such as: Whether the breach was deliberate or inadvertent; whether the breach involves an immoral/illegal use; whether the tenant will make good the breach and will fulfil their obligations in the future; the conduct of the landlord; the personal qualifications of the tenant; the financial position of the tenant; the position of third parties where relevant; the gravity of the breach; whether the breach has caused lasting damage to a landlord; and proportionality.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Therefore, it was not possible to consider factors such as: the circumstances of the breach and whether it was attributable to the tenant or whether she permitted someone else to use meth at the premises; the likelihood of further breaches; and any other personal circumstances of the tenant that should be considered.
However, the breach is serious and has resulted in a high level of meth that has certainly contaminated one area of the premises. The landlord must also consider the impact of meth use at the premises on the neighbouring tenants. In those circumstances, I find that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy and an order is made accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338868 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338868 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Has the tenant breached her obligations?

Is the breach capable of remedy such that the landlord must serve a breach notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Has the tenant breached her obligations?

Is the breach capable of remedy such that the landlord must serve a breach notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions