What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369661 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 5369661?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369661?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12869911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369661 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 5369661?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369661?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12869911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369661 — Exemplary damages

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 is dismissed.

Reasons

On 17 October 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Woodbury and Mr Waters, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant appeared by telephone.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background of the tenancy
The tenant commenced on 29 September 2023 and is periodic.
On or around July 2025 the landlord was notified by the Department of Corrections of two persons being bailed to the property.
On 11 July 2025 the tenant was served with a 14-day notice advising the tenant that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum number of occupants. The tenant was given until 31 July 2025 to remedy the breach.
On 9 October 2025 the landlord arranged for contractors to complete detailed methamphetamine screening testing of the property. Should the tenancy be terminated for breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act?
The landlord seeks possession of the property on the basis the tenant has used, or allowed the premises to be used, for the unlawful purposes namely the consumption of methamphetamine.
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) of the Act.
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.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that a tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 it is unlawful to use, possess, cultivate, traffic in illegal drugs.
The landlord states the property was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant and her dependants were the first people to occupy the premises.
The landlord stated that as the property was a new build no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing was undertaken.
The landlord gave hearsay evidence that the contractors responsible for the construction of the property undertake routine random and suspected use drug and alcohol testing. Details of this testing regime used during the construction of this property, and the results from those tests, were not provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord produced a detailed methamphetamine screening test completed by Meth Test Canterbury. The report was dated 13 October 2025 and records that its purposes was to determine “the extend and magnitude of any methamphetamine contamination” of the property.
On 9 October 2025, 17 discrete samples were taken from the property and sent to Hills Labs for testing.
A certificate of analysis was provided by Hills Laboratories Limited. The report states that the minimum detection limit for the presence of methamphetamine is less 0.02μg/100cm 2 .
The highest reading for the detection of methamphetamine in the property was recorded in the kitchen/lounge/dining room area with a result of 17.8μg/100cm 2 . The lowest reading for the detection of methamphetamine in the property was recorded in the toilet with a result of 0.53μg/100cm 2 . All areas sampled tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.
The landlord gave hearsay evidence that the level of methamphetamine detected in the property was consistent with daily use. The landlord relied on the PHF Science online methamphetamine calculator to support this submission. The landlord said the PHF calculator confirmed that the highest recorded level of methamphetamine contamination, being 17.8μg/100cm 2 , was equal to 547 smoked doses in a 3m x 4m 2 sized room, or 1366 smoked doses in a 6m x 5m 2 sized room.
The tenant denies using or allowing her property to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine but acknowledged she is not always at home when other family members are present in the property.
The landlord relied on three decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal where tenancies have been terminated or compensation ordered where no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing has been undertaken: a. Otautahi Community Housing Trust v Jody Buick [2025] NZTT 5108728 b. Otautahi Community Housing Trust v Julie Kell [2024] NZTT 4828798 c. Otautahi Community Housing Trust v Lisa Lee [2025] NZTT 5350225 Decision and analysis
The Tribunal is not bound by its own decisions.
The District Court has provided guidance to the Tribunal in cases where no pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing has been completed. The District Court has held that where there is no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing is conducted at the commencement of the tenancy, the applicant’s claims must fail. That is because the applicant has not established the premises were contaminated by the respondent during the tenancy.
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person in the premises with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred. Certainly, the landlord has established that there was methamphetamine contamination in the property, but the landlord has not established that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy, because there was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing undertaken.
I note the District Court decision of Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted there was contamination caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical odours arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other ”undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises, as well as regular visits from the police.
The Court did not accept the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises, and concluded that: The difficulty with the landlord’s claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination because there was no pre-tenancy testing undertaken.
That decision was similar to an earlier case from the District Court of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord.
In that case the landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If they had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant’s using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakened the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s appeal was dismissed.
Given the lack of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant, or someone on the premises with their consent used the property for an unlawful purpose and the claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Name Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case. In this case the tenant has been wholly successful and name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369661 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369661 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions