What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375105 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5375105?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375105?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375105?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12723832-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375105 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5375105?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375105?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375105?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12723832-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375105 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the remote hearing, conducted by phone.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail.
The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the most current telephone number for the tenant held by the landlord. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
Mr Mulipola is the sole tenant of a one bedroom apartment in a complex consisting of 26 tenancies spread across 2 buildings. His unit is situated at the far end of the building, furthest from the road. He resides on a floor, shared with two other apartments, with three apartments above and one below, which are all accessed via a shared communal walkway and staircase. Any disruptive behaviour can therefore impact on a large number of residents due to the proximity of the units.
Mr Mulipola’s tenancy commenced on 26 July 2023.
KO is seeking to terminate Mr Mulipola’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Mr Mulipola assaulted a neighbour on 18 September 2025; and •Mr Mulipola has breached his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Threat of assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, 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 assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (iii) any agent of the landlord. (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances, but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind.
The landlord called a tenant Ms F, to give evidence.
Ms F said that on the afternoon of 18 September 2025, she was in her unit. Her unit is directly below Mr Mulipola’s unit. She said that loud music was coming from Mr. Mulipola’s unit. At approximately 4.00 pm, Ms F went outside and called out to Mr. Mulipola. She asked him to turn the music down. The loud music continued.
At approximately 6.00 pm, Ms F went upstairs and knocked on the door of Mr. Mulipola’s unit. Mr. Mulipola opened the door. Ms F asked him to turn the music down. Ms F said that Mr Mulipola became aggressive. “He was right in my face and said that I should get out of his house.” Mr. Mulipola then pushed Ms F to the ground. He reached down and punched Ms F with a closed fist to her face. The punch caused bruising to her cheek. Whilst Ms F was on the ground, Mr. Mulipola kicked Ms F in the hip.
Ms F managed to gain her feet and ran back to her unit. Rather than letting her leave, Mr Mulipola chased her and upon reaching her unit door, attempted unsuccessfully to kick the door in.
Ms F call the police. Mr. Mulipola has now been charged with common assault. That charge has not been dealt with by the courts as yet.
The evidence of Ms F was in part corroborated by the evidence of one of the other neighbours. Mr S said that he resided in a unit on the same floor as Mr. Mulipola. Mr S recalled that on the afternoon of 18 September 2025, he heard a man and a woman arguing in the hallway. He opened his door. He saw a woman that he did not recognise, lying against the wall. Mr. Mulipola was standing over her. He heard Mr. Mulipola say “Fuck off back to your house.”
Not surprisingly, Ms F said that the incident had caused her a great deal of stress. She has an appointment to have the injury to her hip X-rayed and she suffered bruising to her cheek. Ms F explained that the incident had caused her great anxiety and she now lived in fear of any retribution from Mr Mulipola.
The evidence provided by Ms F and Mr S is such that I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Mulipola did assault Ms F, who is a neighbour.
KO also presented evidence of other previous threatening behaviour by Mr Mulipola to neighbours in the complex; • 10 February 2025-Mr Mulipola was seen verbally abusing a female visitor in the shared carpark to the complex. A s.55A RTA Anti-social behaviour notice was issued to Mr Mulipola. • 2 March 2025 – Mr Mulipola threated Ms F with a weapon and threatened to push her down a flight of stairs. A s.55A RTA Anti-Social behaviour notice was issued to Mr Mulipola.
Given the seriousness of the assault on 18 September 2025 and the evidence of previous behaviour by Mr Mulipola, I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Mulipola will commit another act of this kind (see Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004-409-717, 2 July 2004). On this basis, the tenancy is terminated (s.55(2) RTA) Breach of tenant obligations
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) 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.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. KO Evidence
The evidence in relation to this application is the same evidence provided by the landlord for their claim under s.55 (1)(c)(v) RTA. KO claim that Mr Mulipola has breached his obligation under s.40(2)(c) RTA by causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlords other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those tenants. Similarly, clause 9 of the tenancy agreement provides; “As a Kainga Ora tenant you will need to respect your neighbours peace, comfort and privacy”.
The incidents described in paragraphs 11 to 16 above make it clear that Mr Mulipola has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of another resident, Ms F.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

The breach being an assault is not capable of remedy, nor can the landlord be compensated for any loss.
The District Court set out the various factors to be considered in making a decision regarding termination in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the relatively short period of the current tenancy, there have been a number of breaches by Mr Mulipola, with the incident on 18 September 2025 being the most serious.
The tenant has previously been served with 2 Anti-Social behaviour notices. This history would indicate that it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The behaviours of Mr Mulipola are no doubt causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours. Ms F is suffering greatly from the worry and fear caused by this serious incident. I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportionate response to this application.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the remote hearing, conducted by phone.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail.
The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the most current telephone number for the tenant held by the landlord. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
Mr Mulipola is the sole tenant of a one bedroom apartment in a complex consisting of 26 tenancies spread across 2 buildings. His unit is situated at the far end of the building, furthest from the road. He resides on a floor, shared with two other apartments, with three apartments above and one below, which are all accessed via a shared communal walkway and staircase. Any disruptive behaviour can therefore impact on a large number of residents due to the proximity of the units.
Mr Mulipola’s tenancy commenced on 26 July 2023.
KO is seeking to terminate Mr Mulipola’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Mr Mulipola assaulted a neighbour on 18 September 2025; and •Mr Mulipola has breached his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Threat of assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, 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 assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (iii) any agent of the landlord. (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances, but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind.
The landlord called a tenant Ms F, to give evidence.
Ms F said that on the afternoon of 18 September 2025, she was in her unit. Her unit is directly below Mr Mulipola’s unit. She said that loud music was coming from Mr. Mulipola’s unit. At approximately 4.00 pm, Ms F went outside and called out to Mr. Mulipola. She asked him to turn the music down. The loud music continued.
At approximately 6.00 pm, Ms F went upstairs and knocked on the door of Mr. Mulipola’s unit. Mr. Mulipola opened the door. Ms F asked him to turn the music down. Ms F said that Mr Mulipola became aggressive. “He was right in my face and said that I should get out of his house.” Mr. Mulipola then pushed Ms F to the ground. He reached down and punched Ms F with a closed fist to her face. The punch caused bruising to her cheek. Whilst Ms F was on the ground, Mr. Mulipola kicked Ms F in the hip.
Ms F managed to gain her feet and ran back to her unit. Rather than letting her leave, Mr Mulipola chased her and upon reaching her unit door, attempted unsuccessfully to kick the door in.
Ms F call the police. Mr. Mulipola has now been charged with common assault. That charge has not been dealt with by the courts as yet.
The evidence of Ms F was in part corroborated by the evidence of one of the other neighbours. Mr S said that he resided in a unit on the same floor as Mr. Mulipola. Mr S recalled that on the afternoon of 18 September 2025, he heard a man and a woman arguing in the hallway. He opened his door. He saw a woman that he did not recognise, lying against the wall. Mr. Mulipola was standing over her. He heard Mr. Mulipola say “Fuck off back to your house.”
Not surprisingly, Ms F said that the incident had caused her a great deal of stress. She has an appointment to have the injury to her hip X-rayed and she suffered bruising to her cheek. Ms F explained that the incident had caused her great anxiety and she now lived in fear of any retribution from Mr Mulipola.
The evidence provided by Ms F and Mr S is such that I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Mulipola did assault Ms F, who is a neighbour.
KO also presented evidence of other previous threatening behaviour by Mr Mulipola to neighbours in the complex; • 10 February 2025-Mr Mulipola was seen verbally abusing a female visitor in the shared carpark to the complex. A s.55A RTA Anti-social behaviour notice was issued to Mr Mulipola. • 2 March 2025 – Mr Mulipola threated Ms F with a weapon and threatened to push her down a flight of stairs. A s.55A RTA Anti-Social behaviour notice was issued to Mr Mulipola.
Given the seriousness of the assault on 18 September 2025 and the evidence of previous behaviour by Mr Mulipola, I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Mulipola will commit another act of this kind (see Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004-409-717, 2 July 2004). On this basis, the tenancy is terminated (s.55(2) RTA) Breach of tenant obligations
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) 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.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. KO Evidence
The evidence in relation to this application is the same evidence provided by the landlord for their claim under s.55 (1)(c)(v) RTA. KO claim that Mr Mulipola has breached his obligation under s.40(2)(c) RTA by causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlords other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those tenants. Similarly, clause 9 of the tenancy agreement provides; “As a Kainga Ora tenant you will need to respect your neighbours peace, comfort and privacy”.
The incidents described in paragraphs 11 to 16 above make it clear that Mr Mulipola has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of another resident, Ms F.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

The breach being an assault is not capable of remedy, nor can the landlord be compensated for any loss.
The District Court set out the various factors to be considered in making a decision regarding termination in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the relatively short period of the current tenancy, there have been a number of breaches by Mr Mulipola, with the incident on 18 September 2025 being the most serious.
The tenant has previously been served with 2 Anti-Social behaviour notices. This history would indicate that it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The behaviours of Mr Mulipola are no doubt causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours. Ms F is suffering greatly from the worry and fear caused by this serious incident. I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportionate response to this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375105 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375105 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 108, 20 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions