What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372002 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Concord Place, Burwood,

How much money was awarded in case 5372002?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372002 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Concord Place, Burwood,

How much money was awarded in case 5372002?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372002 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372002 — 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

The hearing was conducted remotely.

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing.

The tenant Mr Cullen attended approximately half of the hearing. The hearing commenced at 9.30 am. At 9.49 am, the tenant interrupted the landlord giving evidence. At the commencement of the hearing, I had informed the parties of the procedure to be used during the hearing. I explained that each party would get a turn to explain their version of events to me. When the tenant interrupted the hearing, I repeated this to the tenant and confirmed that the tenant would get his turn. The tenant indicated that he would leave the hearing. I explained that the hearing would proceed in his absence and that the Tribunal would prefer him to stay so that his evidence could form part of the hearing. The tenant swore at me twice and then disconnected the call.

Whilst it is unfortunate that the tenant decided to discontinue his involvement with the hearing, the Tribunal is entitled to hear matters in the absence of a party and that is what has occurred.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to terminate the tenancy.

The tenant occupies a unit in a multi-unit complex operated by the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 16 September 2019. Prior to leaving the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he no longer lived at the complex, but did not agree to the tenancy being terminated.

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. Landlord’s evidence

Mr M is a tenant at the same complex. Mr M gave evidence. He said that at approximately 6 pm on 25 September 2005, he heard Mr Cullen outside his unit. He heard Mr Cullen abuse another tenant, Ms T. Mr M went outside and remonstrated with Mr Cullen. Mr Cullen picked up a garden pitchfork and said, “I’ll just stab you all with the pitchfork.” Mr Cullen was approximately 5 meters away from both Mr M and Ms T when this was said. Mr Cullen then swung the pitchfork at the other two tenants. Mr M and Ms T left.

Mr M said he reported the incident to the police.

Mr M also referred to a previous occasion, on a date which he could not recall, when he saw and heard Mr Cullen threaten Ms T with the same pitchfork.

Ms T did not attend the hearing. An unsigned statement from Ms T was provided which generally supports the version of events described by Mr M. As Ms T did not attend the hearing and has not signed her statement, less weight must be given to her evidence.

These events have had a traumatic effect on the residents of the complex. Termination The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)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 – ... (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:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.... (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 [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].

Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [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 s. 55(2) RTA, 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, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Cullen threatened to assault other tenants in the complex on 25 September 2025 by brandishing a pitchfork at them and threatening to do them harm.

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA 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 threatened assaults that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on those in the complex. The evidence of Mr M was that this was not the first occasion when Mr Cullen has threatened other tenants with the pitchfork. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Cullen will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he be return to the complex in the future.

The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.

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

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372002 — 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

The hearing was conducted remotely.

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing.

Whilst it is unfortunate that the tenant decided to discontinue his involvement with the hearing, the Tribunal is entitled to hear matters in the absence of a party and that is what has occurred.

Mr M said he reported the incident to the police.

Mr M also referred to a previous occasion, on a date which he could not recall, when he saw and heard Mr Cullen threaten Ms T with the same pitchfork.

These events have had a traumatic effect on the residents of the complex. Termination The law

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA are established.

The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.

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

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372002 — Tenancy dispute at 37 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372002 — Tenancy dispute at 37 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions