What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376061 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 5376061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376061?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13300164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376061 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 5376061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376061?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13300164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5376061 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Colleen Donna Patterson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 2pm on Wednesday 18 March 2026.
The hearing of the tenant’s application and of the landlord’s application for compensation is adjourned. The parties will be notified in writing of the time and date of the next hearing.
The landlord is granted leave to amend its application to include an application to dispose of any goods belonging to the tenant and remaining at the premises after the tenant has been given a reasonable opportunity (of not less than 10 days after the possession date in order 2) to collect those goods. This application and any supporting evidence must be filed in accordance with the directions below.
Any application for adjournment of a hearing must be made with as much advance notice as possible and be accompanied by documentary evidence in support. The Tribunal may require parties to attend a video case conference to hear submissions on an adjournment request.
New evidence from either party must be filed no later than 5 days before the next hearing date by email to [email address] and “cc” to the other party and representative. All document pages should be numbered, and an index is helpful.

Reasons

The landlord attended the possession hearing in person at 10am on 27 February 2026 by its representatives, [Landlord’s representative 1] and [Landlord’s representative 2].
There was no appearance in person by the tenant.
I telephoned the tenant and her approved representative, Brett Carpenter (BC), at a few minutes past the hearing start time but could not reach either of them by phone.
I continued the possession hearing in the absence of the tenant or her representative. I set out the reasons for this below (see Issue One). Background
The landlord company runs a business trading as [Business] at [Tenancy address suppressed] and rents out several units. [Landlord’s representative 2] is a director of the landlord company and manages the units day-to-day.
The tenant has lived in unit 3 since 2022.
On 26 November 2025, an argument occurred between the tenant and a visitor ([Witness 1]) to her unit.
The landlord alleges that the tenant seriously assaulted [Witness 1] and then assaulted [Landlord’s representative 2] after [Landlord’s representative 2] was alerted to the argument and came to unit 3 to investigate.
On 3 December 2025, the landlord gave the tenant written notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds the tenant had physically assaulted the landlord, owner, or agent, and a charge had been laid by the police. The landlord also filed an application with the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy and a possession order.
The tenant challenges the notice of termination and the landlord’s applications.

What are the substantive applications?

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 28 October 2025 for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged maintenance and healthy homes standards breaches by the landlord.
The landlord filed its application on 3 December 2025 for termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises. The landlord also seeks compensation for damages related to the assaults. History of adjournment applications
There is a history of adjournments at the request of the tenant. I detail these below because the tenant’s representative has sent several email submissions contending the Tribunal process has been unfair to the tenant.
The Tribunal must consider any application for an adjournment balancing the interests of justice and fairness to all parties, the efficient use of Tribunal resources, and the public interest in timely decisions. 1
On 16 December 2025, I declined an application by the tenant seeking a lengthy adjournment of the termination and possession matters until after criminal proceedings against the tenant had concluded. The District Court has confirmed the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a related matter is pending in a different jurisdiction; Rihi Linda Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation (CIV-2008-006-000033).
On 13 January 2026, I granted an adjournment of a full-day hearing set for the next day based on evidence the tenant had recently been in hospital and was unlikely to be well enough to participate fairly in the hearing. The tenant had not been living at the premises so safety and disruption risk to the landlord was managed. I made directions for the filing of clarified and indexed evidence by 27 January 2026.
At 5pm the day before the next hearing, the tenant applied for another adjournment citing severe pain and urgent medical scans, and the very recent appointment of a new legal representative. I granted this adjournment after hearing from all parties on 3 February 2026, the scheduled day of the hearing. The landlord and witnesses had travelled to the Tribunal and appeared in person.
I made written directions the next day, including:- a. Encouraging the legal representative and a support person to attend the next hearing in person with the tenant. 1 See section 85 RTA. Also see Practice Direction 2/2026 of the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator at paragraph 5. b. That the landlord was entitled to have its serious application heard. c. That the possession hearing would proceed on the next hearing date with or without the tenant present (except in extraordinary circumstances with proven evidence which would be tested) and that it was up to the tenant and her representatives to take steps to ensure she could participate in hearings if that was what she wished to do. d. Reminding the parties that Tribunal time is in high demand and late adjournments result in hearing time being wasted which delays other applications. e. That the tenant file clarified and indexed evidence by 16 February 2026.
A hearing date of 27 February 2026 was set (input was sought from both parties but the tenant’s representative did not respond). The Tribunal was subsequently told the tenant’s legal representative could not attend on that date, but no adjournment request was made.
On 19 February 2026, the Tribunal was advised the legal representative was no longer acting for the tenant. BC applied for an adjournment saying the Tribunal purposely scheduled a date it knew the tenant’s legal representative could not attend and that BC had not had access to the file or evidence so could not properly defend the landlord’s application.
On 25 February 2026, I declined the adjournment in writing to the parties and BC. My reasons were that the Tribunal had not been previously notified of any date the tenant’s legal representative could not attend and no evidence or reasons had been provided to the Tribunal as to why the tenant, her representative, or her previous legal representative could not attend. BC has always had full access to all evidence on the file.
On 26 February 2026, BC was reminded of the evidence direction.

What does the law say about termination of a tenancy for an alleged assault?

The relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are below.
Section 55AA.
Section 55(1)(c).
Section 56.

What are the issues to be decided in this decision?

The issues to be decided are: Issue One – Procedural: Should the hearing of the landlord’s application for termination and possession of the premises be adjourned because of the non-attendance of the tenant and the new evidence received after the possession hearing on 27 February 2026? Issue Two – Procedural: Should the Tribunal consider applications to terminate the tenancy for assault of the landlord, owner, agent and of a visitor to the premises under s55(1)(c) RTA and other relevant sections of the Act? Issue Three – Procedural: Should the landlord’s video and audio evidence be excluded, and should the

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

Issue Four - Substantive: Has the tenancy been validly terminated by the landlord by notice under section 55AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986? If so, is the landlord entitled to a possession order? Is the termination notice retaliatory? Issue Five - Substantive: Must the tenancy be terminated for assault on the landlord, owner or agent – s55(1)(c) RTA? Issue Six - Substantive: Should the tenancy be terminated for assault of a visitor to the premises – s56

RTA?

Issue Seven - Procedural: How should the Tribunal deal with the tenant’s “ex-parte application to dismiss the landlord’s application under section 55AA RTA” and “ex parte stay of proceedings and eviction under s106(1) RTA”? Issue One – Procedural: Should the hearing of the landlord’s application for termination and possession of the premises be adjourned because of the non-attendance of the tenant and the new evidence received after the hearing on 27 February 2026?

The tenant and BC were aware of the hearing on 27 February 2026 at 10am, had not notified the Tribunal prior to the hearing that they could not attend, and were both telephoned at the time of the hearing in an attempt to contact them. BC’s phone went to voicemail. The tenant’s phone rang and then disconnected.
After the hearing finished, I became aware of an email sent by BC to the Tribunal Registrar (who was not present in person at the hearing) at 10:07am. This email contained new evidence and a medical certificate stating the tenant was not fit to attend a tribunal hearing for 3 weeks.
BC’s email said: The previous s79 dismissal application remains undecided, jurisdiction is missing (wrong landlord, no agency), evidence is illegal (audio, stalking), and mum's health is failing. Grant the stay now—under s79 (interim relief), s99 (enforce orders fairly), and s103 (appeal rights)—or the hearing is a sham.
I take from this that the tenant seeks another adjournment (or “stay”) of the hearing of the landlord’s termination and possession application.
The starting point is that every party is entitled to have fair opportunity to attend a hearing and give their views and evidence. However, this must be balanced against the interests of the other party to have their application decided and of the Tribunal to conduct proceedings efficiently. 2
The new evidence sent by BC was:- a. An affidavit of [Witness 2] (25 February 2026) relating to his attendance at and entry into the tenancy premises on behalf of the tenant; b. A medical certificate from [Doctor 1] stating the tenant was “unfit to attend tribunal hearing for 3 weeks from 26 th Feb to 19 th March 2026 due to illness”; c. Copies of two Charging Documents naming the tenant as defendant, for:- i. Assault of [Landlord’s representative 2] on 26 November 2025 – section 196 Crimes Act 1961; and ii. With Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others Wounded Tracey Amos on 26 November 2025 – section 188(2) Crimes Act 1961.
The issue is whether this new evidence means an adjournment should again be granted to give the tenant and BC another opportunity to attend and be heard orally in regard to the landlord’s application. If granted, the landlord would also have further opportunity to be heard.
My decision is not to adjourn the hearing of the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy and for possession of the premises.
My reasons are: a. The Tribunal telephoned both the tenant and BC at the hearing time and neither answered the phone. 2 See above at footnote 1. b. The Tribunal expected and understood that the tenant would attend the hearing in person. Neither she nor BC had requested that she attend remotely (telephone or video). c. BC emailed the Registrar the new evidence at 10:07am. This indicates he was contactable at the time of the hearing. He did not ask in his email that the Tribunal telephone him (for example, if he had missed the first call accidentally). I conclude from this that BC did not intend to participate in the hearing. d. It was discovered after the hearing, that BC had not been emailed a link to attend by videoconference (using Microsoft Teams) as he had been for the previous scheduled dates. BC was aware of this process and did not request the link or notify the Registrar that he had not received it. e. I do not find the medical certificate to be persuasive evidence of the tenant’s inability to attend the hearing or answer the phone. The certificate has been issued by “[Medical service]” which appears to be an online medical service. I conclude it is unlikely the tenant has been seen in person by the doctor. There are no details and no supporting evidence as to what the tenant’s “illness” is or exactly why she cannot participate in a tribunal hearing. I cannot ask the tenant or BC because they did not attend. f. I made it clear in my previous order that only exceptional circumstances that would be tested would justify an adjournment. An unsupported medical certificate from a virtual medical service cannot be tested. g. The landlord sent evidence after the last adjourned hearing that the tenant was well enough to be out shopping, carrying a bag and pulling luggage, 3 days after she had submitted she was in such severe pain from shoulder injuries that she could not participate in the scheduled hearing that day. 3 This evidence was provided to the tenant but no explanation has been offered. This raises questions about the credibility of the tenant’s claims she is medically unfit to attend hearings. h. The history of adjournment requests and late submission of evidence leads me to conclude it is unlikely the tenant will be ready to proceed even if another adjournment was granted. i. On the other hand, the landlord made its application 3 months ago. It seeks termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises on the 3 The tenant’s representatives sought a last-minute adjournment of the previous hearing (3 February 2026) saying the tenant was in extreme pain from shoulder injuries and undergoing urgent medical treatment and scans. On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal was sent photographs and affidavit evidence from two directors of the landlord company that they had seen the tenant at a shopping mall on 6 February 2026, carrying a bag and pulling luggage. grounds of two assaults. These are serious allegations. The delay in the proceedings is causing the landlord and neighbours ongoing uncertainty and stress. It is in the interests of justice that a decision is made on the landlord’s application. j. The tenant has not been residing at the premises but has been paying rent. She has the right to possession of the premises for as long as she is a lawful tenant. This right of possession must be determined now. k. The ongoing and last-minute adjournment applications are using up valuable Tribunal time and depriving other applicants of judicial resources. l. The tenant (by her representatives) has submitted a large volume of evidence. I have taken this into account in this decision, including the new evidence emailed after the hearing had started. Issue Two - Procedural: Should the Tribunal consider applications to terminate the tenancy for assault of the landlord, owner, agent and of a visitor to the premises under s55(1)(c) RTA and other relevant sections of the Act?
The tenant says the landlord’s application has been unfairly expanded to include section 55(1)(c) RTA and an allegation the tenant assaulted a neighbour or visitor to the premises. 4 The tenant submits that the Tribunal should strike out any such application.
I also consider section 56 RTA in this decision as that is also relevant to the landlord’s applications.
Section 91 RTA requires the Tribunal to give each party “reasonable notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing” and the notice of hearing must include: 5 a. A statement of such particulars as will fairly inform the party to whom it is given of the substance of the matters to be dealt with at the hearing: b. A reference to the relevant provision of the Act or regulations under which the authority of the hearing will be held: c. A statement of where information on the procedure of the Tribunal may be obtained: d. A statement warning each party to whom the notice is given that if that party does not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed to determine, dismiss, or adjourn, the matter in that party’s absence. 4 Email from BC to the Registrar, 24 February 2026 5:12pm, saying the “expansion” was not in the original application and was added mid-hearing without notice or amendment. 5 Section 91(2) RTA.
The High Court has confirmed that the statutory obligation (in s91 RTA) is to ensure that the “substance of the matters” in dispute are known to the other party. 6
Parties are not necessarily required to file evidence and submissions in advance. The Judge decided that the substance of the dispute was evident from the applications and from the history of the proceedings.
With reference to s91(2)(b) RTA, Panckhurst J commented that a defect (if there was one) in listing the exact sections of the Act in a notice of hearing would not have caused prejudice in that case because the dispute did not turn on a fine point of interpretation such that parties should have been informed of it in advance of the hearing.
The Judge summarises what is required by an adjudicator to ensure a fair hearing as: 7 “practical simplicity, knowledge of the substance of the opponents’ case and a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute”.
My decision is that the tenant has been aware of the substance of matters in dispute between the parties throughout these proceedings. My reasons are:- a. The landlord’s application sought a possession order on the grounds a notice of termination had been given to the tenant for assaulting the landlord. The application specifically referred to section 55AA RTA. b. The application form did not refer to the assault on a visitor. However, the evidence submitted by the landlord prior to the first case conference related to both the alleged assault on [Landlord’s representative 2] and on the visitor, [Witness 1]. c. All Notices of Hearing sent to both parties prior to all scheduled hearing dates identify the claims as being for termination and possession and refer to a range of relevant sections of the RTA, including s55(1)(c) RTA: d. The Tribunal’s adjournment order dated 13 January 2026 identified the landlord’s applications as relating to both the landlord and the visitor: 6 Paragraph 34 of Lwee v Tenancy Tribunal [2013] NZHC 1602 which was a judicial review of Tenancy Tribunal proceedings. 7 Lwee at paragraph 36. a. the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of assault on the landlord, a member of the landlord’s or owner’s family, the landlord’s agent and/or assault on an occupier or neighbour.
The only relevant section not specifically referred to in the Notice of Hearing is section 55AA RTA. The tenant has not objected to this section being considered and it was specifically referred to by the landlord in the original application form.
The substance of the landlord’s application (seeking the ending of the tenancy because of alleged assaults on the landlord and a visitor to the premises) has been clear to the tenant from prior to the first case conference date (16 December 2025).
I am satisfied there is no procedural or substantive unfairness to the tenant in considering both sections 55(1)(c) RTA and section 56 RTA as well as section 55AA RTA. Issue Three – Procedural: Should the landlord’s video and audio evidence be excluded, and should the

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

The tenant has made written submissions that parts of the landlord’s evidence should be disregarded, and that the Tribunal should require that certain other evidence be filed.
It is important to say that the Tribunal is relatively informal in its process and is intended to be straightforward and easy to use. The Tribunal can accept evidence that may not be admissible in a court and regulate its own procedure; sections 96 and 97 RTA.
I address the concerns raised. a. The use of “illegal” CTV video and audio evidence. This seems to be a reference to the CTV footage from the motel complex and possibly also to photographs taken of the tenant out shopping at a time she had told the Tribunal she was in severe pain. I reject the submission that the CTV evidence is illegal or improper. The camera is installed outside of individual units and security cameras are common in everyday life. The Tribunal is required to take relevant evidence into account. A District Court decision from 2013 confirmed that it was wrong of the Tribunal to exclude a tape recording made without the consent or knowledge of the other party; He v Bai DC Waitakere CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013. Similarly, I reject the objection to the photos taken of the tenant shopping. She was in a public place and the photos were taken for a valid purpose. b. That landlord witnesses have not given sworn affidavits. Affidavits are not a requirement. It is the case that unsworn written statements on their own usually carry less weight than an affidavit. However, the key landlord witnesses gave oral evidence in person ([Landlord’s representative 2], [Witness 3], and [Witness 1]). I accept this oral evidence as compelling and credible and saw no reason to require the formality of requiring the witnesses to promise to tell the truth. The Tribunal has not power to administer an oath or affirmation; section 97(1) RTA. Neither the tenant nor her representative was present at the hearing to challenge the direct accounts given by those witnesses or to provide an alternative. That was their choice.
I am satisfied the CTV video and audio evidence, photographs, and oral evidence from the landlord’s witnesses is relevant and should be considered. Issue Four – Substantive:

Has the tenancy terminated by notice pursuant to section 55AA RTA?

Section 55AA(1) RTA allows a landlord to give a tenant at least 14 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy if:- a. the tenant has physically assaulted the landlord, owner or agent, and b. a charge has been filed in respect of the physical assault.
The landlord served the tenant with a “Termination notice for physical assault by tenant” in the approved form on 3 December 2025. 8 The notice stated that the tenancy would terminate on 20 December 2025 and gave more than the required minimum of 14 days’ notice. 9
The tenant challenges the validity of the notice of termination. This means the landlord must prove the physical assault occurred and that the notice met the requirements of s55AA(3) RTA; see s55AA(4) RTA.
I address the parts of s55AA RTA below. Did the tenant physically assault the landlord, owner, or agent, on 26 November 2025?
Section 55AA(1)(a) RTA says there must be a “physical assault” of the landlord by the tenant. Physical assault is defined in s55AA(6) RTA as: 8 The landlord has ticked a box on the notice form that it was “handed to tenant or sent to an electronic address given as an additional address before 5pm on the date of the notice”. The tenant has not disputed the date of service of the notice. 9 There are 17 days in the notice period from 4 December 2025 to 20 December 2025. physical assault means the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another, directly or indirectly
On 26 November 2025, an argument occurred between the tenant and [Witness 1] inside the tenant’s unit. There was loud noise and yelling.
[Landlord’s representative 2] was alerted to this by [Witness 3], a tradesperson working at the units that day. [Landlord’s representative 2] walked to the tenant’s unit to see what was happening.
I heard oral evidence from [Landlord’s representative 2] in the hearing that she saw the tenant sitting on [Witness 1] on the floor, that the tenant was “gouging” at [Witness 1]’s eye and striking her, and that [Witness 1] was bleeding and injured.
[Landlord’s representative 2] said the tenant then jumped up and came towards her, striking her with one or both of her arms and hitting her across the throat. I also heard from [Witness 3], that he saw the tenant “punch [Landlord’s representative 1] in the face”.
I viewed CTV footage taken at the premises. The CTV camera is installed outside on a high vantage point and gives an overall view of the motel complex. The sliding door entry into unit 3 is clearly visible.
The CTV footage records noises of what sounds like an argument taking place over several minutes with crashing noises, shouting, and some screams. [Landlord’s representative 2] is seen coming to the outside of the sliding door of unit 3, looking and then stepping into the unit, and then about a second later, stepping backwards out of the door.
Three or four seconds later, the tenant is seen coming out of the sliding door and towards [Landlord’s representative 2], into the view of the CTV camera.
The CTV footage shows the tenant advancing and pushing [Landlord’s representative 2] forcefully. 10 [Landlord’s representative 2] is already outside when the tenant pushes her.
I cannot see the tenant striking [Landlord’s representative 2] in any other way.
I have read the tenant’s affidavit sworn on 2 February 2026 in which she raises objections to the notice of termination given by the landlord relating to this assault.
The tenant’s affidavit says she was assaulted in her unit on 26 November 2025 although she does not say who is alleged to have assaulted her. 11 10 At timestamp 13:44:24. 11 I discuss this further below in the context of the alleged assault by the tenant on TA.
The tenant’s affidavit does not specifically deny assaulting [Landlord’s representative 2] or [Witness 1] and, as the tenant did not attend the possession hearing, she did not give oral evidence.
There are some differences between the oral evidence from [Landlord’s representative 2] and [Witness 3] and the CTV evidence. However, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant did intentionally apply force to the person of [Landlord’s representative 2]. The tenant intentionally pushed [Landlord’s representative 2], and this is seen on the CTV footage.
I also accept [Landlord’s representative 2]’s oral evidence that the tenant’s arms hit her in the throat area.
The push was not minor. It was not a prod or a touch. The tenant was advancing on the landlord and was agitated and intimidating.
The tenant’s representative has made written submissions that any force used by the tenant was either reasonable or defensive because both [Witness 1] and [Landlord’s representative 2] entered her premises without her permission, and she wanted them to leave.
I do not agree that [Landlord’s representative 2] entered the premises unlawfully. My review of the CTV footage satisfies me that if [Landlord’s representative 2] did enter the unit, it was because the noises of distress and [Landlord’s representative 2] seeing an ongoing physical altercation between the tenant and [Witness 1], with bleeding, constituted an “emergency” in terms of a landlord’s rights of entry into tenancy premises in s48(2)(a) RTA. It was reasonable for [Landlord’s representative 2] to think that [Witness 1] and/or the tenant were in danger. Any entry by [Landlord’s representative 2] into unit 3 at this time was lawful.
Neither do I agree that any force was reasonable, lawful, or needed by the tenant to remove [Landlord’s representative 2] from the premises. The CTV footage shows [Landlord’s representative 2] very quickly stepping back out of the unit.
[Landlord’s representative 2] was already outside unit 3 when the tenant advanced on her and pushed her.
[Landlord’s representative 2] is a director of the landlord company. I repeat my finding in an earlier decision (dated 5 February 2026), that [Landlord’s representative 2] is a landlord and owner of the property for the purposes of s55AA RTA. If I am wrong about that because the landlord is a company, I am satisfied that [Landlord’s representative 2] is an agent of the landlord.
The landlord has proved the tenant intentionally applied force to the person of [Landlord’s representative 2]. Had a charge been filed by or on behalf of the Crown against the tenant in respect of the physical assault at the time the notice of termination was given?
Section 55AA(1)(b) RTA says the notice of termination can be given if a charge “... has been filed in respect of the physical assault” [my underlining].
The tenant challenges the validity of the notice of termination saying that the charge was not filed until after the notice of termination was given or served on the tenant.
This issue was raised during the short hearing on 3 February 2026 (which I then agreed to adjourn).
The tenant states in her affidavit that she (and BC) phoned the [District Court] on 30 January 2026 and were advised that the Charging Document filed by the Crown in respect of the alleged assault on the landlord was not filed until 8 December 2025.
The Charging Document initially supplied in evidence was provided to the tenant as part of disclosure under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 and did not specify the date of filing. 12 I directed the tenant to provide evidence (by 16 February 2026) to establish the date the charge was filed.
One of the new pieces of evidence filed by the tenant by email after the 27 February 2026 hearing had started, was a new copy of the Charging Document.
This copy is marked “Press Copy” and includes wording across the top which says: Filed in the District Court at [location suppressed] on the 8 th day of December 2025.
The Charging Document goes on to state that Colleen Donna Patterson has been charged by the Crown with: Date of offence:On the 26 th day of November 2025 Offence location:at [suppressed] Offence description:ASSAULTED [Landlord’s representative 2] Legislative reference:Crimes Act 1961 Section 196
I agree with the tenant that the requirement in s55AA(1)(b) RTA is past tense (“has been filed”) meaning a charge must have already been filed at the time the notice of termination is given to the tenant.
Based on the new evidence, the Charging Document was filed on 8 December 2025. 12 This document shows a blank signature space with the words “Signature not required if filed electronically”.
This means the notice does not comply with the requirements of s55AA(1)(b) RTA because the charge had not yet been filed at the date the notice was signed and served which was on 3 December 2025.

Is the charge that has been filed in respect of a physical assault?

There is another problem.
A landlord can only give notice to terminate a tenancy for a physical assault on a landlord where the Crown has also filed a charge for a physical assault.
The particulars of the charge that has been filed must describe a physical assault regardless of the offence described [my underlining]; s55AA(2) RTA.
The definition of assault in the Crimes Act 1961 is wider than a physical assault. assault means the 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 or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose.
An assault includes attempting to apply force to the person of another and may include acting in a way which threatens to do so.
The particulars of the charge filed against the tenant are found in the Charging Document. 13
The offence description says “assaulted” which, by definition, can mean something less than a physical assault.
In my view, the offence description on the Charging Document related to the assault on [Landlord’s representative 2] does not describe a physical assault.
A Charging Document used to support a notice of termination under s55AA RTA must do so; s55AA(2) RTA. For example, the Charging Document could describe the charge as “physically assaulted” or “intentionally applied force to the person of ...”.
I note that the description in the notice of termination describes a physical assault, saying: Colleen Patterson confronted [Landlord’s representative 2] outside unit #3 and struck [Landlord’s representative 2].
My decisions are:- 13 “charge” means a charging document under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011; s55AA(6) RTA. a. that the charge had not yet been filed as at the date the notice of termination was given to the tenant; and b. that the Charging Document does not prove a charge has been filed against the tenant in respect of the physical assault of [Landlord’s representative 2]. It proves only that the tenant has been charged with assault - which could mean an attempt to physically assault, or acts or threats to do so.
This means the tenancy has not terminated pursuant to the notice of termination dated 3 December 2025.
My decision means it is not necessary for me to consider the other requirements of s55AA RTA. However, I mention these below for completeness.

Does the notice to terminate the tenancy comply with all the legal requirements?

Section 55AA has other specific requirements; see s55AA(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the notice included all prescribed information including a description of the physical assault, the name of the person assaulted and of the tenant, and the date and approximate time and location of the physical assault. 14
The notice contains qualifying evidence in the approved form of the prescribed type; s55AA(6)(b) RTA. 15
The qualifying evidence is a signed written statement, dated 3 December 2025, by a police officer that a charge has been filed by the Crown against the tenant in respect of the alleged physical assault on the landlord on 26 November 2025.
However, the written statement signed by the police officer is incorrect and invalid for the reasons given above:- a. A charge had not “been filed” at the date the police officer signed the written statement. The statement was signed on 3 December 2025, but the charge was not filed until 8 December 2025; and b. The charge filed is not in respect of a “physical assault” by the tenant on the landlord, owner, or agent.
The application by the landlord for a possession order based on the notice of termination dated 3 December 2025 is dismissed. 14 Prescribed in regulation 5 of Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022. 15 Prescribed in regulation 6 of the Regulations in the footnote above.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

If the termination notice had been valid, the tenant says it was given in retaliation for the tenant previously making complaints and filing a Tribunal application relating to alleged maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards breaches.
The Tribunal may declare a notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the tenant proves, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising their rights or making a complaint; section 54 RTA.
The termination notice is not valid, so I do not need to determine this point.
Section 54 RTA only applies when a landlord has given a notice to terminate a tenancy and does not apply to sections 55 and 56 RTA. Issue Five – Substantive: Must the tenancy be terminated for assault on the landlord or owner – s55(1)(c)

RTA?

I now consider section 55(1)(c) RTA which requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where satisfied a tenant has assaulted the landlord, owner or agent of the landlord.
I have made factual findings that I am satisfied the tenant physically assaulted [Landlord’s representative 2] on 26 November 2025 by intentionally applying force to her person by pushing her. [Landlord’s representative 2] is an agent of the landlord.
The tenant assaulted [Landlord’s representative 2]. This finding means I must terminate the tenancy. Section 55(1)(c) RTA requires it.
I note that [Witness 1] is not an occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part nor a neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. [Witness 1] lives elsewhere in [Town] and is a frequent visitor to the motel complex but is not a neighbour. This means section 55(1)(c)(iv) and (v) RTA do not apply to the assault on [Witness 1]. Issue Six – Substantive: Should the tenancy be terminated for assault of a visitor to the premises – s56

RTA?

For completeness, and because it is significant, I also consider the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of the tenant assaulting [Witness 1], the visitor to the premises.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA 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 of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
I find the evidence that the tenant assaulted [Witness 1] while [Witness 1] was visiting the tenant’s unit to be strong.
[Witness 1] gave oral evidence at the possession hearing. She said she had known the tenant for about two years because [Witness 1] often visited her brother and cousin who live in unit 2, next to the tenant. She said she went to the tenant’s unit on 26 November 2025 to ask if she could use the tenant’s oven to heat up pizza (because the power was off in some of the other units) and the tenant agreed to this. She said the tenant then asked her about a dog [Witness 1] used to have and became suddenly enraged when [Witness 1] said the dog had been taken to Animal Control. [Witness 1] said she had no chance to explain this further, when the tenant rushed at her. Her memory was unclear as to the exact sequence of events, but she remembers the tenant jumping on her and sitting on her back, gouging her fist into her eye, and then scratching and hitting her arms. She said she was calling to her cousin who lives in the neighbouring unit to try and alert her. These calls can be heard on the CTV audio.
The landlord has provided photographs taken of [Witness 1]’s injuries. [Witness 1] told me the injuries were caused by the tenant’s assault on her that day. Two photos were taken by [Landlord’s representative 2] straight after the assault and show [Witness 1] with a bloodshot eye and several deep scratches on her right forearm. Three other photos show bruising on [Witness 1]’s upper arm, lower and mid-back, and the back of one lower leg. The photos showing bruising were taken about 3 days after the assault occurred.
CTV footage does not show the alleged assault because it took place inside the tenant’s unit. However, shouting, yelling and crashing noises can be heard. When [Witness 1] comes out of the unit, she is moving slowly and sits down at an outdoor table outside whereas the tenant comes rushing out, pushes [Landlord’s representative 2], and is very agitated. The tenant is protesting loudly that “she hit me” (meaning [Witness 1] hit the tenant) and says “and I hit her back”.
The landlord has also supplied medical records from a local medical centre dated that day which corroborate the injuries [Witness 1] described.
A charging document has been provided which establishes that the tenant has been charged with the offence of wounding [Witness 1] with reckless disregard for her safety pursuant to section 188 Crimes Act 1961.
I note that the tenant says in her affidavit that she was assaulted in her unit on 26 November 2025. 16 She states: I was punched three times in the face, then I was hit with a heavy plate on my right forearm, which tore several tendons and caused a large hematoma and severe pain. Then I was hit on the back of my head, causing me to hit the floor, impacting my right hip.
The affidavit also says that she was hospitalised after these assaults and refers to hospital admission and discharge records. As far as I can ascertain, no hospital records have been provided in evidence.
I acknowledge the written report from [Doctor 2], orthopaedic surgeon dated 6 January 2025. [Doctor 2] is based in [Overseas country] and the report says it is based on a telehealth consultation. The report discusses shoulder and forearm injuries and draws conclusions that some of these have been caused by assaults on 5 August 2025 and 26 November 2025. The report is accompanied by several radiology reports from dates ranging from 29 September to 16 December 2025.
I place little weight on this report because the doctor was not put forward as a witness so I could not ask questions about her conclusions. I am concerned that the doctor did not see the tenant in person and is relying on the oral account given to her by the tenant or her representative about the alleged assaults.
The tenant has not attended the hearings, so I have no oral evidence from her about the events.
I find it significant that the tenant has not provided any corroborating evidence to prove that she was assaulted and sustained injuries on 26 November 2025. For example, there are no photos of injuries or breakages in the unit, no medical records from that date or soon after, no police records, and no witness statements.
I asked [Witness 1] if she had assaulted the tenant. She said she had not.
In summary, I am satisfied that the tenant assaulted [Witness 1] on 26 November 2025.
A tenant must not use tenancy premises for any unlawful purpose or cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of 16 At paragraph 11. the landlord’s other tenants or of any other person residing in the neighbourhood; section 40(2)(b) and (c) RTA.
I find that the tenant breached the reasonable peace of the landlord’s other tenants by assaulting [Landlord’s representative 2] and [Witness 1]. [Witness 1] was visiting [Witness 1]’s brother and cousin who live at the premises. She was lawfully inside the tenancy premises when she was assaulted by the tenant.
I am also satisfied that physically assaulting and wounding [Witness 1] in the tenancy premises is using the premises for an unlawful purpose because the assault is a crime.
The tenant has breached s40(2)(b) and (c) of the RTA.
The breaches are not capable of remedy because the assault cannot be undone. [Witness 1] and her brother and cousin cannot forget that the tenant did this. The landlord had to intervene and was assaulted in the process.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This was a serious incident which has had ongoing effects. I accept the landlord’s evidence that [Landlord’s representative 2] has found it very difficult to work at the motel complex since the assaults due to ongoing anxiety. [Witness 1]’s relatives live next door to the tenant’s unit and [Witness 1] should be able to visit them without being afraid another incident may occur.
The tenancy is terminated. Possession is granted to the landlord at 2pm on Wednesday 18 March 2026.
I am satisfied the short timeframe is appropriate because of the seriousness of the issues and because the tenant has not been living at the premises since the assaults occurred. The parties can negotiate a reasonable period for the removal of the tenant’s belongings. Issue Seven – Procedural: How should the Tribunal deal with the tenant’s “ex-parte application to dismiss the landlord’s application under section 55AA RTA” and “ex parte stay of proceedings and eviction under s106(1) RTA”?
BC has been a frequent correspondent to the Tribunal. He has made submissions demanding that the Tribunal dismiss the landlord’s applications.
The Tribunal does not dismiss an application before a hearing has been held. This would be contrary to natural justice.
The possession hearing has now been held. My decision is to grant the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises.
I have not addressed all of BC’s reasons for seeking dismissal because BC was not at the hearing to explain these and the tenant was not present to give evidence. Some of their objections have been dealt with in previous adjournment directions and in this decision as part of my assessment of the relative merits of the parties’ evidence. Adjournment of remaining applications
The tenant’s applications relating to maintenance and healthy homes standards and the landlord’s application for compensation are adjourned to a future date, as previously discussed with the parties.
The landlord can file an application for disposal of any of the tenant’s goods still remaining in the premises after a reasonable period of at least 10 days after the termination date. See sections 62 – 62F RTA. Suppression of names
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I have no concerns about its conduct. I suppress its name from the published order.
The tenant has been proven to have assaulted the landlord and a visitor to the premises. Her name is not suppressed.

At a glance

Claims & awards

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the substantive applications?

What does the law say about termination of a tenancy for an alleged assault?

What are the issues to be decided in this decision?

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

RTA?

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

Has the tenancy terminated by notice pursuant to section 55AA RTA?

Is the charge that has been filed in respect of a physical assault?

Does the notice to terminate the tenancy comply with all the legal requirements?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

RTA?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What are the substantive applications?

What does the law say about termination of a tenancy for an alleged assault?

What are the issues to be decided in this decision?

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

RTA?

Tribunal require affidavits to be filed?

Has the tenancy terminated by notice pursuant to section 55AA RTA?

Is the charge that has been filed in respect of a physical assault?

Does the notice to terminate the tenancy comply with all the legal requirements?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

RTA?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions