What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404629 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5404629?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12915795-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404629 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5404629?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12915795-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404629 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404629 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404629. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of	$28.00		2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Claims and awards for application 5404629. Verify on MoJ.

2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
[The tenant/s] to pay the filing fee of $28.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis of a assault or threat to assault.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 6 August 2025. Mr Reynolds is the sole tenant. The landlord is Ōtatahi Community Housing Trust.
This application relates to events on 20 November 2025. The landlord claims that Mr Reynolds had an argument with another tenant in the complex, Paul. 1
While there is some dispute around the context and precisely what happened, what the parties agree on is the following: a. Issues arose between Paul and a third-party neighbour in relation to noise from Paul’s unit. b. The third-party neighbour went to Mr Reynolds, seeking his assistance to engage with Paul. c. Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit. There is some disagreement around what happened at the unit, but the argument spilt onto the common area (path) in front of Paul’s unit. d. During the argument, Paul punched Mr Reynolds on the face, injuring his nose. e. The argument continued, with Mr Reynolds returning to his unit, where he got a hammer, and returned to Paul’s unit, and carried on with the argument. While Paul was not struck with the hammer, Mr Reynolds was holding it during the further argument. f. The Police attended, and Paul was arrested.
I record here that Mr Reynolds position is that he was trying to help the third party neighbour deal with the issues she was facing from Paul. Mr Reynolds also considers that Paul had a weapon such as a knife, and the reason he got the hammer was in response to that.
Ultimately, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate Mr Reynolds’ tenancy on the ground that he assaulted or threatened to assault Paul.
Given the issues, the Tribunal has scheduled an urgent telephone hearing which I convened on 22 December 2025. In attendance was Ms Wyatt, Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds for the landlord, and Mr Reynold and his mother Ms Dansby-Scott. 1 The landlords position is that it will be seeking similar orders against Paul.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the landlord states that they are seeking a termination of Mr Reynolds’ tenancy, on the grounds of an assault and or threat to assault. The landlord also considers there has been a breach incapable of remedy.
The events on 20 November 2025. The landlord states that an elderly female tenant has raised issues around noise at the complex, and asked that Mr Reynolds go and speak to Paul, which he did. Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit, where there was a physical argument. Mr Reynolds then went back to his unit, and then returned to continue the argument but armed with a hammer.
The landlord’s position is that this cannot be self-defence, given there was no imminent danger for the Mr Reynolds, and it also involved Mr Reynolds going into Paul’s unit.
Based on the available evidence, the landlord considers that the Respondent is the primary aggressor, albeit that it was Paul who was arrested by the Police.
The landlord refers to the exhibits that have been sent in, which Mr Reynolds confirmed that he has seen and listened to.
The landlord particularly referred to the security camera footage at 11 minute and 8 Seconds, showing the Respondent returning to Paul’s unit with the hammer.
The landlord also refers to the unsigned witness statements, noting that the landlord has had difficulty in getting witnesses to sign the statements or getting the witnesses to attend the hearing.
In their concluding submissions, the landlord states that there has been no reference from other witnesses to Paul having a weapon of any sort.
The landlord notes that the potential for a catastrophic outcome was great, if it were not for the intervention of neighbours to calm the waters.
When Mr Reynolds returned with the hammer about a minute after the argument, that was not at all necessary.

TENANTS RESPONSE

Mr Reynolds disputes that he has been threatening or assaulted anyone in the complex, but believes that if there has been any issue, it is Paul who has been threatening.
On the day of the event, the third-party neighbour went to the tenant raising concerns about Paul’s behaviour and noise. Mr Reynolds confirms that we went to Paul’s house, and in the process, did push Paul into the house. Mr Reynolds considers that he walked away, but it was Paul who was the aggressor. Paul then punched him, injuring his nose.
Mr Reynolds confirmed that he did get a hammer, but that was in order to protect himself and the others, as he believed that Paul had a weapon with him at the time.
The Police arrived, but Mr Reynolds has not been able to obtain the Police records prior to the hearing. The Police arrested Paul. The Police said they understood why he took the hammer, and told him that he should call the police if similar situations arise in the future.
Mr Reynolds agrees that it was “foolish” to grab the hammer, but at the time he thought he was doing the right thing.
Mr Reynolds does not wish to have it tenancy terminated.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Termination provisions
Section 55 of the RTA is a general termination provision. That confirms that 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: (i) ... (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider an application from the landlord to order a termination of Mr Reynolds’ tenancy, on the ground of an assault or threat to assault.
I recognise at once that there are differences of viewpoint between the parties around some of the details over what happened, but I find there is a sufficient basis to determine this case based only on the undisputed evidence which I have set out above. In very brief summary, the undisputed evidence is that Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit to engage with him over what the third-party neighbour said to him, there was an argument in a public area, Mr Reynolds was assaulted, and then he returned to his unit to obtain a hammer and return to re-engage with Paul.
In this case, the fact of Mr Reynolds obtaining and returning with the hammer is of such seriousness that this, on its own, would be grounds to order the tenancy be terminated.
What is notable about this case, is the range of video and audio evidence available. The landlord has provided security camera footage, which is 13 minutes and 16 seconds in length. That shows the following: a. Mr Reynolds went to what I accept is Paul’s unit. b. At around 8 minutes, there was a physical altercation immediately in front of Paul’s unit. c. At 9 minutes, 18 seconds (or thereabouts), Mr Reynolds walks away from the scene. I understand Mr Reynolds went to his unit. Paul went back to his unit. d. At 11 minutes and 10 seconds, Mr Reynolds returns carrying a hammer, from where there is further posturing between him and Paul. The parties eventually go toward their respective units but with continuing shouting, with Mr Reynolds then turning back and running toward Paul’s unit at 12 minutes and 10 seconds again with the hammer, and continues shouting aggressively at Paul.
I agree with the landlord that obtaining the hammer was not self-defence. After the prior altercation (where Mr Reynolds reports being punched on the nose), Paul went back to his unit, and Mr Reynolds went back to his (where he got the hammer). There certainly was no immediate danger to Mr Reynolds or anyone else, given the video evidence; there is no arguable case of self-defence here.
In my assessment, the event would have been disturbing for most people who witnessed it, and any tenant who saw that weapons were being used (the hammer), would rightly be very concerned, and it would diminish their own sense of security and well-being in their homes.
The risk presenting to anyone involved in a fight where a hammer is being used is obvious; in this case it is fortunate that neither party was seriously injured or killed.
The threat with the hammer is of such significance that this on its own, must result in a finding that the Tribunal orders this tenancy to terminate immediately on the basis of a threat to assault a neighbour.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404629. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of	$28.00		2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Claims and awards for application 5404629. Verify on MoJ.

2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 2. Regan Reynolds to pay the filing fee of

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
[The tenant/s] to pay the filing fee of $28.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis of a assault or threat to assault.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 6 August 2025. Mr Reynolds is the sole tenant. The landlord is Ōtatahi Community Housing Trust.
This application relates to events on 20 November 2025. The landlord claims that Mr Reynolds had an argument with another tenant in the complex, Paul. 1
While there is some dispute around the context and precisely what happened, what the parties agree on is the following: a. Issues arose between Paul and a third-party neighbour in relation to noise from Paul’s unit. b. The third-party neighbour went to Mr Reynolds, seeking his assistance to engage with Paul. c. Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit. There is some disagreement around what happened at the unit, but the argument spilt onto the common area (path) in front of Paul’s unit. d. During the argument, Paul punched Mr Reynolds on the face, injuring his nose. e. The argument continued, with Mr Reynolds returning to his unit, where he got a hammer, and returned to Paul’s unit, and carried on with the argument. While Paul was not struck with the hammer, Mr Reynolds was holding it during the further argument. f. The Police attended, and Paul was arrested.
I record here that Mr Reynolds position is that he was trying to help the third party neighbour deal with the issues she was facing from Paul. Mr Reynolds also considers that Paul had a weapon such as a knife, and the reason he got the hammer was in response to that.
Ultimately, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate Mr Reynolds’ tenancy on the ground that he assaulted or threatened to assault Paul.
Given the issues, the Tribunal has scheduled an urgent telephone hearing which I convened on 22 December 2025. In attendance was Ms Wyatt, Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds for the landlord, and Mr Reynold and his mother Ms Dansby-Scott. 1 The landlords position is that it will be seeking similar orders against Paul.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the landlord states that they are seeking a termination of Mr Reynolds’ tenancy, on the grounds of an assault and or threat to assault. The landlord also considers there has been a breach incapable of remedy.
The events on 20 November 2025. The landlord states that an elderly female tenant has raised issues around noise at the complex, and asked that Mr Reynolds go and speak to Paul, which he did. Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit, where there was a physical argument. Mr Reynolds then went back to his unit, and then returned to continue the argument but armed with a hammer.
The landlord’s position is that this cannot be self-defence, given there was no imminent danger for the Mr Reynolds, and it also involved Mr Reynolds going into Paul’s unit.
Based on the available evidence, the landlord considers that the Respondent is the primary aggressor, albeit that it was Paul who was arrested by the Police.
The landlord refers to the exhibits that have been sent in, which Mr Reynolds confirmed that he has seen and listened to.
The landlord particularly referred to the security camera footage at 11 minute and 8 Seconds, showing the Respondent returning to Paul’s unit with the hammer.
The landlord also refers to the unsigned witness statements, noting that the landlord has had difficulty in getting witnesses to sign the statements or getting the witnesses to attend the hearing.
In their concluding submissions, the landlord states that there has been no reference from other witnesses to Paul having a weapon of any sort.
The landlord notes that the potential for a catastrophic outcome was great, if it were not for the intervention of neighbours to calm the waters.
When Mr Reynolds returned with the hammer about a minute after the argument, that was not at all necessary.

TENANTS RESPONSE

Mr Reynolds disputes that he has been threatening or assaulted anyone in the complex, but believes that if there has been any issue, it is Paul who has been threatening.
On the day of the event, the third-party neighbour went to the tenant raising concerns about Paul’s behaviour and noise. Mr Reynolds confirms that we went to Paul’s house, and in the process, did push Paul into the house. Mr Reynolds considers that he walked away, but it was Paul who was the aggressor. Paul then punched him, injuring his nose.
Mr Reynolds confirmed that he did get a hammer, but that was in order to protect himself and the others, as he believed that Paul had a weapon with him at the time.
The Police arrived, but Mr Reynolds has not been able to obtain the Police records prior to the hearing. The Police arrested Paul. The Police said they understood why he took the hammer, and told him that he should call the police if similar situations arise in the future.
Mr Reynolds agrees that it was “foolish” to grab the hammer, but at the time he thought he was doing the right thing.
Mr Reynolds does not wish to have it tenancy terminated.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Termination provisions
Section 55 of the RTA is a general termination provision. That confirms that 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: (i) ... (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider an application from the landlord to order a termination of Mr Reynolds’ tenancy, on the ground of an assault or threat to assault.
I recognise at once that there are differences of viewpoint between the parties around some of the details over what happened, but I find there is a sufficient basis to determine this case based only on the undisputed evidence which I have set out above. In very brief summary, the undisputed evidence is that Mr Reynolds went to Paul’s unit to engage with him over what the third-party neighbour said to him, there was an argument in a public area, Mr Reynolds was assaulted, and then he returned to his unit to obtain a hammer and return to re-engage with Paul.
In this case, the fact of Mr Reynolds obtaining and returning with the hammer is of such seriousness that this, on its own, would be grounds to order the tenancy be terminated.
What is notable about this case, is the range of video and audio evidence available. The landlord has provided security camera footage, which is 13 minutes and 16 seconds in length. That shows the following: a. Mr Reynolds went to what I accept is Paul’s unit. b. At around 8 minutes, there was a physical altercation immediately in front of Paul’s unit. c. At 9 minutes, 18 seconds (or thereabouts), Mr Reynolds walks away from the scene. I understand Mr Reynolds went to his unit. Paul went back to his unit. d. At 11 minutes and 10 seconds, Mr Reynolds returns carrying a hammer, from where there is further posturing between him and Paul. The parties eventually go toward their respective units but with continuing shouting, with Mr Reynolds then turning back and running toward Paul’s unit at 12 minutes and 10 seconds again with the hammer, and continues shouting aggressively at Paul.
I agree with the landlord that obtaining the hammer was not self-defence. After the prior altercation (where Mr Reynolds reports being punched on the nose), Paul went back to his unit, and Mr Reynolds went back to his (where he got the hammer). There certainly was no immediate danger to Mr Reynolds or anyone else, given the video evidence; there is no arguable case of self-defence here.
In my assessment, the event would have been disturbing for most people who witnessed it, and any tenant who saw that weapons were being used (the hammer), would rightly be very concerned, and it would diminish their own sense of security and well-being in their homes.
The risk presenting to anyone involved in a fight where a hammer is being used is obvious; in this case it is fortunate that neither party was seriously injured or killed.
The threat with the hammer is of such significance that this on its own, must result in a finding that the Tribunal orders this tenancy to terminate immediately on the basis of a threat to assault a neighbour.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404629 — 14-day notice at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404629 — 14-day notice at 4 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS RESPONSE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS RESPONSE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions