What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379004 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans,

How much money was awarded in case 5379004?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379004?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379004 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans,

How much money was awarded in case 5379004?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379004?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379004 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379004 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose	$200.00	Exemplary damages - permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014, Dover Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11:59pm on Friday 19 December 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Ms Wyatt and Mr Woodbury, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 134, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, breach incapable of remedy, failure to perform tenant responsibilities, unlawful activity. Whilst the landlord did not specify exemplary damages as a claim in their main application, this was mentioned several times later in their application as a claim. During the hearing the landlord clarified they would like to proceed with exemplary damages claim. As this was indicated several times by the landlord in their application materials, I am willing to consider a claim for exemplary damages also by the landlord. Background
The landlord provided a baseline methamphetamine testing report dated 3 December 2019, just before the tenancy began, which showed test results for a composite sample taken of 0.57μg/100cm², which the landlord said was below the industry standard suggested ‘safe’ rate of 1.5μg/100cm².
The landlord then arranged for further methamphetamine testing, which was carried out on 25 July 2025, reflected in a report dated 29 July 2025, where 9 individual samples were tested. Five of the nine samples had test results of over
5μg/100cm². Those five test results were 1.89μg/100cm², 4.4μg/100cm²,
8μg/100cm², 5.9μg/100cm², and 9.7μg/100cm².
The landlord said they spoke with the tenant about the methamphetamine test results and she admitted that she had had parties at the premises where others had smoked methamphetamine. The landlord played an audio recording during the hearing of a phone call between them and the tenant, where the tenant admitted this. Unlawful use of the premises
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting the use of methamphetamine in the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Is use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine unlawful?

Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 provides that no person shall procure or have in their possession, or consume, smoke, or otherwise use, any controlled drug.
Section 2 of the Mise of Drugs Act 1975 defines a ‘controlled drug’ as being any substance, preparation, mixture, or article specified or described in Schedules 1, 2 or 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Methamphetamine is a Schedule 1 Class A drug pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and so is considered a controlled drug which is prohibited from being possessed, smoked or consumed or used otherwise further to section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
As such, the use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine is unlawful.
The evidence provided by the landlord includes baseline methamphetamine testing before the tenant moved into the property, which then showed a barely detectable level of methamphetamine, lower than the industry standard, and so did not require any further individual sample testing, contrasted with the methamphetamine testing that is the subject of the report dated 29 July 2025, which shows significant increases in the levels of methamphetamine at the property. I find this evidence, along with the tenant’s acknowledgement on the audio recording played at the hearing that others who came to her property used methamphetamine in the property, shows that is is more likely than not that the tenant permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
As the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, I find she has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, in this situation, the tenant either used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, allowing the situation to continue over a period of time. As such, I find the tenant committed this unlawful act intentionally.
I have dealt with the intent of the tenant above, As a result of the tenant’s actions, the landlord will likely have to remediate the methamphetamine levels at the property without likely being able to claim for this from the tenant, given the test levels so far. The landlord said this will redivert funds that could have been used for other tenant facilities at their social housing complex. The landlord also indicated that they are concerned at the increasing level of methamphetamine use at their complex by tenants and the effect of this on other tenants. The landlord is a social housing provider that provides housing to low-income tenants. This is a much-needed service currently.
It is in the public interest that properties are protected from being used unlawfully by tenants in this way and that social housing communities are kept safe from this influence.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,800.00. In this case, I consider an order of less than one third of the maximum would be indicated. The tenant is a low-income social housing tenant. Whilst I accept there has been an impact for the landlord, I find the tenant’s financial circumstances mitigate the amount of the order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $200.00

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord said the tenant has breached their obligations by using or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, which was consumption and use of methamphetamine.
The landlord said the breach is not capable of remedy because methamphetamine has already been used in the property and has affected the property, and it cannot be removed without professional decontamination.
I have found, as outlined above, that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose and have ordered exemplary damages against the tenant for this. I find this to be a serious breach. In the circumstances and given the evidence of how the landlord will have to remediate this from funds that will likely be diverted from other services for their tenants, and the increasing concern about methamphetamine at the landlord’s complex and the safety of other tenants there, I find it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord did not claim for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379004 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose	$200.00	Exemplary damages - permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014, Dover Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11:59pm on Friday 19 December 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Ms Wyatt and Mr Woodbury, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 134, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, breach incapable of remedy, failure to perform tenant responsibilities, unlawful activity. Whilst the landlord did not specify exemplary damages as a claim in their main application, this was mentioned several times later in their application as a claim. During the hearing the landlord clarified they would like to proceed with exemplary damages claim. As this was indicated several times by the landlord in their application materials, I am willing to consider a claim for exemplary damages also by the landlord. Background
The landlord provided a baseline methamphetamine testing report dated 3 December 2019, just before the tenancy began, which showed test results for a composite sample taken of 0.57μg/100cm², which the landlord said was below the industry standard suggested ‘safe’ rate of 1.5μg/100cm².
The landlord then arranged for further methamphetamine testing, which was carried out on 25 July 2025, reflected in a report dated 29 July 2025, where 9 individual samples were tested. Five of the nine samples had test results of over
5μg/100cm². Those five test results were 1.89μg/100cm², 4.4μg/100cm²,
8μg/100cm², 5.9μg/100cm², and 9.7μg/100cm².
The landlord said they spoke with the tenant about the methamphetamine test results and she admitted that she had had parties at the premises where others had smoked methamphetamine. The landlord played an audio recording during the hearing of a phone call between them and the tenant, where the tenant admitted this. Unlawful use of the premises
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting the use of methamphetamine in the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Is use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine unlawful?

Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 provides that no person shall procure or have in their possession, or consume, smoke, or otherwise use, any controlled drug.
Section 2 of the Mise of Drugs Act 1975 defines a ‘controlled drug’ as being any substance, preparation, mixture, or article specified or described in Schedules 1, 2 or 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Methamphetamine is a Schedule 1 Class A drug pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and so is considered a controlled drug which is prohibited from being possessed, smoked or consumed or used otherwise further to section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
As such, the use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine is unlawful.
The evidence provided by the landlord includes baseline methamphetamine testing before the tenant moved into the property, which then showed a barely detectable level of methamphetamine, lower than the industry standard, and so did not require any further individual sample testing, contrasted with the methamphetamine testing that is the subject of the report dated 29 July 2025, which shows significant increases in the levels of methamphetamine at the property. I find this evidence, along with the tenant’s acknowledgement on the audio recording played at the hearing that others who came to her property used methamphetamine in the property, shows that is is more likely than not that the tenant permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
As the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, I find she has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, in this situation, the tenant either used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, allowing the situation to continue over a period of time. As such, I find the tenant committed this unlawful act intentionally.
I have dealt with the intent of the tenant above, As a result of the tenant’s actions, the landlord will likely have to remediate the methamphetamine levels at the property without likely being able to claim for this from the tenant, given the test levels so far. The landlord said this will redivert funds that could have been used for other tenant facilities at their social housing complex. The landlord also indicated that they are concerned at the increasing level of methamphetamine use at their complex by tenants and the effect of this on other tenants. The landlord is a social housing provider that provides housing to low-income tenants. This is a much-needed service currently.
It is in the public interest that properties are protected from being used unlawfully by tenants in this way and that social housing communities are kept safe from this influence.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,800.00. In this case, I consider an order of less than one third of the maximum would be indicated. The tenant is a low-income social housing tenant. Whilst I accept there has been an impact for the landlord, I find the tenant’s financial circumstances mitigate the amount of the order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $200.00

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord said the tenant has breached their obligations by using or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, which was consumption and use of methamphetamine.
The landlord said the breach is not capable of remedy because methamphetamine has already been used in the property and has affected the property, and it cannot be removed without professional decontamination.
I have found, as outlined above, that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose and have ordered exemplary damages against the tenant for this. I find this to be a serious breach. In the circumstances and given the evidence of how the landlord will have to remediate this from funds that will likely be diverted from other services for their tenants, and the increasing concern about methamphetamine at the landlord’s complex and the safety of other tenants there, I find it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord did not claim for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379004 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379004 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 20, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine unlawful?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is use, consumption or possession of methamphetamine unlawful?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions