What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358813 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton,

How much money was awarded in case 5358813?

2. Christopher Fox Is To Pay Otautah…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358813?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713092-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358813 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton,

How much money was awarded in case 5358813?

2. Christopher Fox Is To Pay Otautah…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358813?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713092-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358813 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358813. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Christopher Fox is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust	$28.00		2. Christopher Fox is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083, Fred Price Place is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Sunday 30 November 2025.

[The tenant/s] is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00, being the filing fee for the application, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt attended on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) on the grounds that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault an occupier of a building of which the premises constitute a part.

The tenant has been living at the tenancy address since 2017. He has had a difficult history with a neighbour in the same complex. He feels that the neighbour has behaved badly towards him over a long period and that the neighbour instigated the bad feeling between them.

Nevertheless, audio evidence was provided at the hearing to confirm that the tenant had both assaulted and threatened to further assault the neighbour being another occupier of a building of which the premises constitute a part.

The victim also provided testimony to support the landlord’s claim.

Although he did not agree with all of the evidence presented by the landlord, the tenant acknowledged that he had behaved in a manner which amounts to assault. He also acknowledged that further threats were made.

I find that the tenant has assaulted his neighbour and threatened to further assault him.

Section 55(2) provides very limited circumstances where the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy notwithstanding that the subsection 1 threshold has been met. “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.”

Assault and threats to assault are not breaches that can be remedied but this does not mean that the other two aspects of the discretion cannot be considered (Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665).

No compensation can be applied to address the loss here and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit further breaches of this kind. The tenant himself suggested that it would be difficult for him to control himself where the victim was concerned given their history and the ongoing animosity.

In these circumstances the tenancy must be terminated.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358813. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Christopher Fox is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust	$28.00		2. Christopher Fox is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust

[The tenant/s] is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00, being the filing fee for the application, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt attended on behalf of the landlord.

The victim also provided testimony to support the landlord’s claim.

I find that the tenant has assaulted his neighbour and threatened to further assault him.

In these circumstances the tenancy must be terminated.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358813 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358813 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions