What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358982 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 5358982?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358982?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358982 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 5358982?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358982?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358982 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358982 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358982 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, and the second tenant’s ([Tenant 2]’s) name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Thursday 19 February 2026. 3. immediately, as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is the second hearing, which all attended in person. While there are two named tenants, I will refer to Ms Copeland as the tenant and [Tenant 2] as the tenant’s daughter.
At the first hearing, the tenants appeared in person with a support person. The landlord attended by telephone, and, near the end of the hearing, had a support person also attend. This hearing was adjourned part-heard, as the results of a recent test for methamphetamine contamination were only available on the day of the hearing, and the tenant was to have further time to consider and respond to it. The hearing was to be reconvened as a matter of urgency, but unfortunately, there were delays in re-scheduling. Background
The background is set out again for completeness. This tenancy began on 23 July 2025, for a one year fixed term, due to end on 23 July 2026. The rent is $680.00 per week and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The tenant, Ms Copeland, has filed an application (number 5358641) regarding a plumbing invoice, stating that she ought not to be liable for it. The tenant also claims a breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment by the landlord, and failure to give proper notice when testing for methamphetamine.
The landlord, in its application (5358982), seeks termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenancy agreement, and compensation and exemplary damages arising from methamphetamine (meth) contamination. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for decontamination work to be undertaken at the premises arising from damage. At the first hearing, the landlord clarified its application, noting that exemplary damages were no longer sought.
In terms of the plumbing invoice, both parties explained the circumstances. The tenant considers this invoice ought to be paid by the landlord, as it arose from a maintenance issue, when the toilet became blocked. The landlord believes the tenant is liable. At the second hearing, the tenant indicated that she had made payments towards the plumbing invoice, and was no longer pursuing her claims for a breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment by the landlord, and failure to give proper notice when testing for methamphetamine. Therefore, these claims no longer need to be determined.
The main issue concerns the consequences of the detection of methamphetamine at the premises on testing, which is set out below. Both parties provided oral and documentary evidence. Testing for methamphetamine contamination
The landlord arranged for testing of the premises before the tenancy began, and subsequently in September 2025 and November 2025. The pre-tenancy test on 18 July 2025, conducted by [Tester 1], indicated that all areas of the premises were clear of methamphetamine contamination.
On 15 September 2025 [Tester 1] conducted a further test, concluding that there was meth contamination in the kitchen (1.61 μg), toilet (1.65 μg) and bedroom 1 (4.2 μg). There were also elevated levels in the other rooms, with a reading of
41 μg in bedroom 2, 0.55 μg in the sleepout, and 0.78 μg in the sunroom.
On 24 November 2025 [Tester 2] conducted testing, with results showing that, in bedroom 2, the level of methamphetamine was 11.7 μg/100cm. 2 The other rooms showed low traces. An email from [Tester 2], dated 26 November 2025, indicated that extensive cleaning had been undertaken prior to this test. She further wrote that “there is an increase in the meth residue which indicates that the property has been contaminated during their tenancy.” The email also confirmed that they followed the same numbering of bedrooms as used in the [Tester 1] report. The landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord states that, for the decontamination work to occur, termination of the tenancy was required. The landlord explained that testing was done before the tenancy and within three months of the tenancy beginning. The owner’s insurance policy would not provide cover for any additional contamination, so the insurer had suspended the policy. The insurer required vacant possession for the clean- up work. The parties had tried to work out the ending of the tenancy by mutual agreement.
The landlord detailed the meth test findings, noting that the pre-tenancy test confirmed the property was clean before the tenancy commenced. On 15 September 2025 [Tester 1] conducted a further test. The kitchen, toilet and bedroom 1 returned failed results, and there were elevated levels in the other rooms. The results reflected clear contamination occurring during the tenancy, with significant increases from the July 2025 clean baseline.
The landlord explained that a further test was conducted by [Tester 2] on 24 November 2025. Bedroom 2 returned a failed result. The other rooms showed low traces consistent with partial cleaning. Because the sampling locations matched the July baseline test, the concerns about inconsistent testing have been ruled out. The owner’s insurer confirmed they will not cover contamination in any room that exceeds the 15 September 2025 levels. Bedroom 2 is now excluded from insurance cover, due to its increased contamination. Any further contamination will void additional parts of the policy, due to the owner having a meth suspension on her policy for the duration of this tenancy.
The landlord states that both testing companies have refused to return to the premises due to aggressive and threatening behaviour from the tenants. Other contractors have also advised they are not comfortable returning to the property. This was now preventing essential maintenance and contamination related work required to protect the property and comply with insurance conditions. The landlord provided the relevant email correspondence and other documentary evidence in support. The tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant denies responsibility for the meth contamination. She does not accept or believe any of the results from the testing undertaken by the landlord. She has not undertaken her own testing. The tenant states she does not smoke meth, nor does her daughter (whose name is also on the tenancy agreement). She does not believe any visitors have used meth, and other people who have stayed are family members. She questions whether the property was clean when she moved in. She lives at the premises with her partner and daughter.
In her written submissions, the tenant states that, based on the advice received, the landlord cannot force them out of the premises unless the house was uninhabitable. Even the highest reading from the September 2025 test would not be considered a health hazard, nor damage to the property, and therefore, decontamination would not be necessary.
In her oral evidence the tenant states that she is happy living at the house and wants to stay until the end of the tenancy, since the property was perfect for herself and her daughter. She kept the property clean and tidy. This is the first time she had heard of contractors being unwilling to attend the premises and denies being hostile to tradespeople. She felt the landlord’s approach to conducting a test within two months of the tenancy beginning was bizarre.
She believes the current landlord has been trying to end her tenancy after contacting her previous landlord. Her previous landlord had said she was a great tenant, despite a meth test being positive when she left the previous property. For the second hearing, the tenant provided an email from her previous landlord. She also provided evidence of her text exchanges, to demonstrate that she was co-operative when asked to allow access to the premises.
At the second hearing, in response to the landlord’s November 2025 testing results, and the report from [Tester 2], the tenant explained why her partner was following the people conducting the testing, noting they did not trust they were doing their job correctly.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Legal framework

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The provisions relating to termination of tenancies may be found in sections 50 to 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This includes termination of the tenancy under 59A, where the breach renders the premises uninhabitable, and under section 56 for non-payment of rent and other breaches.
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA provides that the tenant shall not “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.”
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation. The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper. 2
In the recent High Court decision of Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Ltd Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467, the Court discussed the considerations that apply in assessing whether a methamphetamine contaminated premises is uninhabitable. The decision confirmed that the Tribunal cannot apply section 59B of the RTA to terminate a tenancy, since there are no regulations currently in force that prescribe either a method of contamination testing, or a maximum inhabitable level for methamphetamine.
In this case, the landlord has not applied under sections 59A or 59B of the RTA, but rather, under section 56, with termination of the tenancy being sought for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. Where the breach is not capable of 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
Section 56(1) of the RTA provides that 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. Has there been a breach of the tenants’ obligations?
Having considered the overall evidence and the submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have breached the obligation under section 40(2)(b) of the RTA which provides that the tenant is not to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
In this case, the landlord has provided persuasive evidence to establish that methamphetamine was likely used at the premises, which is an unlawful activity. The evidence, which comprises a total of three meth tests, also shows meth use occurred during this tenancy. These tests have been conducted by independent testing companies. While the tenant does not accept the findings, she has not provided any persuasive countervailing evidence in response, such as her own meth testing results.
In terms of the testing results, there was a pre-tenancy baseline test conducted on 18 July 2025, which indicated the premises was free of methamphetamine before the tenancy began (on 23 July 2025). Testing results in September 2025 showed elevated levels of meth, with the kitchen, toilet and bedroom 1 returning results above 1.5μg/100cm. 2 It is acknowledged that the levels were below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore not at the level considered to present a health risk or damage to the property.
However, further testing in November 2025 indicates that the level of meth in bedroom 2 has increased considerably. While the remainder of the rooms showed low traces, and are likely to have been cleaned, the results from bedroom 2 indicates continued meth use at the premises.
Therefore, on balance, I find it likely that the tenants have continued to breach their obligation not to permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

Was the breach capable of remedy?

A number of cases have held that a breach of a negative covenant in the tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy. For example: a. Premises used for any unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the RTA, in circumstances where there was allegation of drug use. 3 b. Interference with the reasonable peace and privacy of neighbours, in breach of section 40(2)(c) 4 .
However, Judge Walker in Te Rangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation 5 held that it is not always so that a breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. The Judge stated that it is necessary to consider the nature of the breach and the tenant’s part in it. In that case, the Court held that the breach was not one that was capable of remedy.
In this case, there is evidence to show the tenancy premises was used for an unlawful purpose, being methamphetamine use. Having considered the nature of the breach, the tenant’s conduct, and the overall circumstances, I find the breach to be one that was not capable of remedy. In these circumstances, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation (above) the Court considered the following factors to be relevant to section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach “is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.” a. Whether the breach was advertent or deliberately committed. b. Whether the breach involves immoral or illegal behaviour. c. Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil their obligations in the future. d. The conduct of the landlord. e. The financial position of the tenant f. Sometimes the position of third parties has had to be considered, for example, the position of a contracting purchaser of the interest. g. The gravity of the breach h. Whether a breach has occasioned lasting damage to a landlord. i. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. 3 Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-33, 19 March 2008 4 Fuavai v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-679, 24 August 2009; and Aluesi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-662, 24 August 2009. 5 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010. See also commentary in Westlaw at RT56.02
Applying the factors set out above, I find that the breach in this case was serious, because it involved an illegal activity. While the tenant denies using meth herself at the premises, I consider it likely that she was aware of its use and allowed it to continue. Furthermore, she does not appear to have taken any steps to exclude the person responsible for it from the premises.
The evidence from the November 2025 testing shows the breach continued and has not been remedied. While most of the areas tested showed that the level of meth had reduced, presumably because cleaning had been undertaken, the result of testing in bedroom 2 produced a result of 11.7μg/100cm. This is a noticeable increase since the start of the tenancy, and from the level in September 2025 of 0.41μg/100cm. This indicates the levels of meth in that area have continued to increase, suggesting the breach, being the unlawful activity involving meth use, has continued at this premises.
I consider the landlord to have been reasonable in its approach, in trying to resolve this issue directly with the tenant, hoping to get her co-operation. The landlord has displayed patience and understanding in the circumstances, and it is accepted that the findings of testing resulted in a stressful situation for the landlord and owner.
It is acknowledged that the breach has not been to the extent that there has been lasting physical damage, and the levels of meth detected at the premises do not reach those considered under the Gluckman standard to result in damage to the premises. However, in view of the insurance implications of these findings, it is likely to be disruptive for the landlord, and involve additional time and effort to arrange for professional cleaning before re-letting the property.
Taking all these factors into account, and accepting that the ending of the tenancy would cause serious disruption for the tenants, I do not consider termination of the tenancy to be disproportionate to the breach. This is because the breach is serious, involving unlawful activity, which has likely continued during this tenancy. Therefore, weighing up all these factors, I find that the balance falls in favour of the landlord, and it would be inequitable for the tenancy not to be terminated.
Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated, as recorded above.
Being mindful that the tenant will need to make arrangements to move elsewhere, I have allowed 14 days for the ending of the tenancy.
As the tenancy has not yet ended, the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre.
I decline to award the insurance excess, as requested by the landlord, since the work has not been completed, so no costs have been incurred, although it is anticipated. The landlord can submit another application after the tenancy has ended and the work has been undertaken. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been substantially successful with the application. The landlord’s request for name suppression (as noted in the application form and requested at the first hearing) is granted on the same basis.
The tenants also seek name suppression. Having had regard to the interests of the parties, and the public interest, suppression is granted for the second named tenant only ([Tenant 2]). This is because she has become involved in this application due to circumstances outside her control, and the detriment she may suffer if her name was published outweighs the public interest on this occasion. Name suppression for Ms Copeland is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358982 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358982 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Was the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Was the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions