Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403742 — 14-day notice at 38 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

Decided 18 Dec 2025 · Published 18 Dec 2025 · Application 5403742

14-day notice
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Christchurch

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

J Greene

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 38 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 18 January 2026.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 17 December 2025. Ms Wyatt and Mr Olds represented the landlord. The application
Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) has applied to terminate Ms Bryant’s tenancy based on her threatening to assault and then assaulting a neighbouring tenant at the social housing complex where she lives. The evidence
I heard evidence from the tenant who was the victim of the assault and from another tenant who saw some but not all the altercation that took place. I also heard evidence from Ms Bryant and from her partner about what occurred,
The landlord produced a sound file of a phone discussion between Ms Wyatt and the tenant in which Ms Bryant admitted assaulting the other tenant.
The event occurred on 22 October 2025 at about 2pm. The tenant whom Ms Bryant assaulted said in evidence that she came to his unit and started yelling and abusing him from the doorstep. Then, she barged her way into his unit. He was sitting in a chair by the front door on the porch area. He followed her into the lounge. She ‘took a swing’ at him and punched him once in the chest with her fist.
The tenant said he was upset and was crying because he was so scared. He told her to leave but she did not. Later Ms Bryant went to her unit, returned with a tool, and stabbed his car tyre. He said that was the fifth tyre she had damaged and which he had had to replace. He said he called the police who visited the following day. He said Mr Bryant later apologised but he did not want anything to do with her because he feared her.
The other witness, also a tenant at the complex, said that Ms Bryant was yelling and was intimidating towards the other tenant. He said she ‘threw a punch’ about 20 feet away from the tenant in an intimidating way but he did not see her enter the other tenant’s unit. He said the other tenant was shaken and in tears after the incident. He said he had seen Ms Bryant behave like that on other occasions.
Although Ms Bryant said that this witness changed his evidence there is no significant difference between what he told the police and what he said in his witness statement.
Ms Bryant said she was having a difficult day that day and had been drinking; she had severe PTSD and anxiety. She said she acted in self-defence and would plead that as a defence as she has been charged with common assault and wilful damage. She said she accepted that she should not let her anger blur her judgment and was now attending counselling to address the death of her former partner. Findings
Ms Bryant denies entering the tenant’s unit and punching him. She said she went to talk to the other tenant about the way he was treating a young guy who lives at the complex. She said she had other issues with the tenant because he had done nothing when he found her former partner dead, and he had taken multiple photos of her current partner naked when he walked outside after epileptic events, not knowing what he was doing.
Unlike Ms Bryant’s criminal case, I only need be persuaded that she assaulted the other tenant on the balance of probabilities; that is, more likely than not.
Although Ms Bryant denies entering the other tenant’s unit, her partner said she did. He said in evidence that Ms Bryant did go into the other tenant’s unit because that tenant asked her in. He said he was about twenty-five metres away. The tenant who was assaulted did not say he invited Ms Bryant in. I find that he did not.
The tenant who was assaulted said that Ms Bryant entered his unit where she assaulted him. And in the transcript of her phone discussion with Ms Wyatt, Ms Bryant admitted assaulting the other tenant.
I accept that Ms Bryant has hurdles in her life, the result of harmful past experiences, and she struggles with substance abuse.
While those things might explain her behaviour, they do not excuse it. Nor can she justify what she did even if, as she believes, the other tenant ‘goads her.’
Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises of which the premises constitute a part.
The tenant who was assaulted was a neighbour of premises that constitute part of the overall premises.
The Tribunal only has a limited discretion not to terminate a tenancy in cases like this. It can only exercise that discretion where it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy, which this breach is not), that landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind.
Given the evidence I heard of Ms Bryant’s aggressive behaviour over time, I cannot be satisfied that she would not commit a similar breach again. The catalyst for this assault was her concern about another tenant which was really none of her business.
Ms Bryant is currently on bail, the tenancy address being her bail address. She must abide by bail conditions that include having no contact with the tenant she assaulted and keeping a distance away from him. She assured the Tribunal she has complied with those bail conditions and will continue to do so.
Ms Wyatt said that OCHT did not seek immediate termination and was prepared to allow the tenant time to make arrangements to move elsewhere, given the bail conditions that are in place.
I have therefore allowed Mr Bryant a month before she must vacate the tenancy given the time of year. Result
Ms Bryant’s tenancy is terminated because she assaulted a neighbouring tenant on 22 October 2025. Possession is granted to the landlord at 11.59 pm on Sunday 18 January 2026.
Ms Bryant must pay the filing fee OCHT had to pay to make the application ($28.00) because it is successful.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Harassment Christchurch

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s10, s55(1)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: harassment

Property management

OTAUTAHI COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5403742 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 38 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5403742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403742?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894814-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.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 38 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 18 January 2026.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 17 December 2025. Ms Wyatt and Mr Olds represented the landlord. The application

Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) has applied to terminate Ms Bryant’s tenancy based on her threatening to assault and then assaulting a neighbouring tenant at the social housing complex where she lives. The evidence

I heard evidence from the tenant who was the victim of the assault and from another tenant who saw some but not all the altercation that took place. I also heard evidence from Ms Bryant and from her partner about what occurred,

The landlord produced a sound file of a phone discussion between Ms Wyatt and the tenant in which Ms Bryant admitted assaulting the other tenant.

The event occurred on 22 October 2025 at about 2pm. The tenant whom Ms Bryant assaulted said in evidence that she came to his unit and started yelling and abusing him from the doorstep. Then, she barged her way into his unit. He was sitting in a chair by the front door on the porch area. He followed her into the lounge. She ‘took a swing’ at him and punched him once in the chest with her fist.

The tenant said he was upset and was crying because he was so scared. He told her to leave but she did not. Later Ms Bryant went to her unit, returned with a tool, and stabbed his car tyre. He said that was the fifth tyre she had damaged and which he had had to replace. He said he called the police who visited the following day. He said Mr Bryant later apologised but he did not want anything to do with her because he feared her.

The other witness, also a tenant at the complex, said that Ms Bryant was yelling and was intimidating towards the other tenant. He said she ‘threw a punch’ about 20 feet away from the tenant in an intimidating way but he did not see her enter the other tenant’s unit. He said the other tenant was shaken and in tears after the incident. He said he had seen Ms Bryant behave like that on other occasions.

Although Ms Bryant said that this witness changed his evidence there is no significant difference between what he told the police and what he said in his witness statement.

Ms Bryant said she was having a difficult day that day and had been drinking; she had severe PTSD and anxiety. She said she acted in self-defence and would plead that as a defence as she has been charged with common assault and wilful damage. She said she accepted that she should not let her anger blur her judgment and was now attending counselling to address the death of her former partner. Findings

Ms Bryant denies entering the tenant’s unit and punching him. She said she went to talk to the other tenant about the way he was treating a young guy who lives at the complex. She said she had other issues with the tenant because he had done nothing when he found her former partner dead, and he had taken multiple photos of her current partner naked when he walked outside after epileptic events, not knowing what he was doing.

Unlike Ms Bryant’s criminal case, I only need be persuaded that she assaulted the other tenant on the balance of probabilities; that is, more likely than not.

Although Ms Bryant denies entering the other tenant’s unit, her partner said she did. He said in evidence that Ms Bryant did go into the other tenant’s unit because that tenant asked her in. He said he was about twenty-five metres away. The tenant who was assaulted did not say he invited Ms Bryant in. I find that he did not.

The tenant who was assaulted said that Ms Bryant entered his unit where she assaulted him. And in the transcript of her phone discussion with Ms Wyatt, Ms Bryant admitted assaulting the other tenant.

I accept that Ms Bryant has hurdles in her life, the result of harmful past experiences, and she struggles with substance abuse.

While those things might explain her behaviour, they do not excuse it. Nor can she justify what she did even if, as she believes, the other tenant ‘goads her.’

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises of which the premises constitute a part.

The tenant who was assaulted was a neighbour of premises that constitute part of the overall premises.

The Tribunal only has a limited discretion not to terminate a tenancy in cases like this. It can only exercise that discretion where it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy, which this breach is not), that landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind.

Given the evidence I heard of Ms Bryant’s aggressive behaviour over time, I cannot be satisfied that she would not commit a similar breach again. The catalyst for this assault was her concern about another tenant which was really none of her business.

Ms Bryant is currently on bail, the tenancy address being her bail address. She must abide by bail conditions that include having no contact with the tenant she assaulted and keeping a distance away from him. She assured the Tribunal she has complied with those bail conditions and will continue to do so.

Ms Wyatt said that OCHT did not seek immediate termination and was prepared to allow the tenant time to make arrangements to move elsewhere, given the bail conditions that are in place.

I have therefore allowed Mr Bryant a month before she must vacate the tenancy given the time of year. Result

Ms Bryant’s tenancy is terminated because she assaulted a neighbouring tenant on 22 October 2025. Possession is granted to the landlord at 11.59 pm on Sunday 18 January 2026.

Ms Bryant must pay the filing fee OCHT had to pay to make the application ($28.00) because it is successful.