Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5401812 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 12, 250 Gloucester Street, Christchurch Central,
Decided 18 Dec 2025 · Published 18 Dec 2025 · Application 5401812
- 14-day notice
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 12, 250 Gloucester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 4pm on Thursday 18 December 2025.
Reasons
- Both parties attended today’s hearing.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant assaulted his neighbour, who is another tenant at the property.
- Section 55 RTA requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy upon application by the landlord if: (1) (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, a neighbour in the building where the tenant resides. Section 55(2) grants the Tribunal some discretion as to whether to make a termination order or not. (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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)).
- In Collins v Housing New Zealand HC, Christchurch 2 July 2004, which was a case that involved the landlord applying for termination under s 55(1)(c) RTA because the tenant made a threat to kill, the Court dismissed the tenant’s appeal against a termination order made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the District Court. The learned Judge accepted that an assault or threat of assault once made cannot be remedied. But he did not accept that the discretion under section 55(2) is then spent. He held that if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is set aside and the Tribunal should consider the two remaining issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind.
- This means that the questions that the Tribunal must determine are: a. Did the tenant assault another tenant? If yes then; b. Should the Tribunal exercise discretion under s55(2) RTA?
- Assault is defined in section 2 of the Crimes Act as “assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another...”
- Self-defence is a defence to assault, that is if you believe that another person is about to assault you then you can use reasonable force to stop that occurring.
- The tenant accepts that on the 25 October a physical altercation occurred between him and his neighbour Juniyah. The tenant says that Juniyah had been loudly ranting the day before and that on the 25 October he heard Juniyah speaking disrespectfully to another elderly tenant at the complex. The tenant said that he told Juniyah off and that Juniyah started yelling at him. He accepts that at some stage the verbal altercation turned physical he says he pushed Juniyah after Juniyah ‘got in his face’. The tenant says that both him and Junior punched each other. The tenant says that since the incident, he has apologised to Juniyah and they have made their peace with one another and there have been no other problems.
- The landlord provided the Tribunal with evidence of their telephone discussions with the tenant about the incident. The tenant accepts in those phone calls that he ‘threw punches’ but also says the other tenant did as well.
- At today’s hearing I heard from Juniyah and witness A. Witness A is a neighbour who was outside and heard a commotion. She went to Juniyah’s premises and saw the two men in an altercation. She says that Juniyah was asking the tenant to leave but he refused. She says she then called the Police.
- Juniyah’s story is largely consistent with the tenants. Where they differ is that Juniyah says that the argument first occurred outside his premises but then when he opened the door to talk to the tenant, the tenant pushed him and he fell back inside his property and the tenant followed, he said that there were punches ‘swung’ and then he tackled the tenant and managed to hold him down until he agreed to leave Juniyah’s unit. Juniyah says that when he let the tenant go the tenant tried to ‘go’ again and started hitting and pushing him. Juniyah says that he put the tenant in a headlock and the tenant kept on punching him in the stomach and the groin. Juniyah says the only way he could stop getting hit was to bend his back over the table and hold the tenant in the front. Juniyah said that witness A came in called the Police and eventually the tenant agreed to leave.
- I am satisfied that the tenant assaulted his neighbour and that it was not self defence for the following reasons: a. The tenant accepted in his evidence today that he had pushed the neighbour after he got in his face. Pushing someone is an assault. b. The tenant accepted that he had punched Juniyah both in evidence today and in a phone conversation with his landlord. c. The tenant indicated in a phone conversation with his landlord that he had initiated the physical assault. When asked “did you initiate?” he replied “yes” d. I accept that the majority of the physical altercation occurred in Juniyah’s home and that the tenant refused to leave Juniyah’s home. I say this because both Juniyah and witness A said this. e. Whilst I found the tenant to be open and honest about what had occurred for the most part, when it came to the detail of the altercation, he was vague and gave inconsistent accounts of what happened. Should the Tribunal exercise discretion under s55(2) RTA?
- I do not consider that the Tribunal should exercise discretion under s55(2) RTA for the following reasons: a. The assault was not minor, there was pushing and punching. b. The assault occurred in the neighbour’s home. c. The complex that the parties live in social housing with vulnerable tenants. The tenants all live in close proximity. I consider that if a tenant assaults another that there needs to be termination to ensure the safety of everyone at the complex and to set a precedent that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
- As I have found that the tenant committed an assault, the tenancy is terminated pursuant to s55(1)(c) RTA.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s2, s246412, s55, s55(1), s55(2), s78A(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
Property management
- OTAUTAHI COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401812 about?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 12, 250 Gloucester Street,
How much money was awarded in case 5401812?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401812?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401812?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891539-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.