What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406328 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5406328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12892067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406328 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5406328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12892067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 14, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406328 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Olds appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by video link.
On 4 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking immediate termination of the tenancy on the basis that, contrary to section 55(1)(c)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), on 10 November 2025 the tenant had threatened to assault a sub-contractor engaged by the landlord to undertake gardening work at the property. Evidence
The tenancy commenced on 25 August 2020. The landlord is a social housing provider. The property is within a complex. The tenancy agreement contains a clause stating that the landlord is responsible for the grass and the community gardens, but the tenant is responsible for the upkeep of a small area of garden directly in front of and behind their unit. The landlord employs sub-contractors to maintain the grass and community areas; however, general instructions have been issued to the sub-contractors to maintain tenants’ gardens if they are encroaching on a community area or creating a health and safety issue.
Witness X stated that they had been engaged by the landlord to work on the garden directly outside the front of the tenant’s property, which was encroaching onto a pathway deemed a community area. The witness stated that on 10 November 2025, at around 9am, they were using a petrol-driven hedge trimmer, which is similar in appearance to, but not, a chainsaw.
The witness stated that they became aware of the tenant standing at the window overlooking the garden, shouting at them through the window. The witness stated that they ceased work, at which point the tenant came out of the property wearing only their underwear and holding a metal pole, which the tenant pointed at the witness, holding it a few centimetres away from their chest.
The witness stated that they asked the tenant, “Are you threatening me?” to which the tenant replied, “Yes.
The witness described the tenant’s demeanour as threatening, stating that he was saying, “fuck this and fuck that.” The witness stated that they felt threatened and, believing that they might be assaulted, left the scene and walked a short distance to a nearby work vehicle.
The witness stated that a short time later, the tenant appeared fully clothed and without the metal bar, and said in a threatening tone, “What the fuck do you think you are doing?” The witness stated that the tenant explained he had thought the contractor was there to remove a self-sown plum tree from the tenant’s garden without permission. The witness stated that they explained they were there only to clear the path and would not touch any trees. The witness stated that the tenant then “gave me permission” to clear the path and that the tenant was calmer.
The witness stated there was a further conversation but could not recall what was said. As they did not want to complete the work and wanted to leave the complex, they terminated the conversation and left.
The landlord called a second contractor, who stated that they had been approached by the first witness, who said they had been threatened. While at the vehicle, the tenant had approached, appearing to be very angry and acting in an aggressive manner. The witness stated they were wearing ear protectors and could not describe the initial words spoken by the tenant, but said it sounded like “What the fuck are you doing?” The witness stated that they felt threatened.
The landlord stated that there had been a history of the tenant abusing other contractors, including someone working on spouting in November 2024, two electricians servicing a heat pump in December 2024, and a carpet layer in June 2025. Anti-social behaviour notices had been issued for the first two incidents and for the incident that is the subject of this claim. The landlord stated that following the June 2025 incident, they had been given an undertaking by the tenant that they would not approach contractors and that if they had any issues to raise them with the landlord only.
The landlord stated that this demonstrated a propensity by the tenant to act abusively and threateningly toward contractors, which supported the allegations made by the witnesses. The landlord stated that the tenant had not exercised their right to challenge the notices at the time, suggesting that they accepted the alleged behaviour. The landlord noted that, despite being warned and agreeing not to interfere with contractors in June 2025, the tenant had done so again in November 2025.
The tenant stated that they had previously overheard a conversation between other contractors concerning the removal of a pittosporum and a plum tree on a boundary opposite their property. The tenant covertly recorded part of the encounter, in which the contractors deny this.
The tenant accepted that the landlord was obliged to maintain the trees and common areas but stated that this obligation did not extend to the garden directly outside the tenant’s property, which was confirmed in the agreement.
The tenant stated that a small self-sown plum tree had established itself in his garden and that he had enjoyed watching it grow. The tenant stated that early on the morning in question, he was awakened by the sound of a chainsaw outside. He stated that he witnessed a contractor outside using what appeared to be a chainsaw on the garden.
The tenant stated they yelled out through the window. The tenant said they feared the contractor was going to remove the tree and went outside dressed only in their underwear. The tenant stated that they were concerned for their safety and, on the way outside, grabbed a short metal bar, usually used as a door stop. They stated that they asked the contractor what they were doing, but the contractor ignored the request.
The tenant denied using foul language and denied threatening the contractor with the bar. They vehemently denied telling the contractor that they were threatening them. The tenant described holding the metal bar with both hands in front of their torso, accepting that one end was pointing toward the contractor, but not in the manner described by the witness.
The tenant stated that the contractor walked away, and that they then went inside, got dressed, and walked to the contractor’s vehicle to seek an explanation. The tenant denied being threatening or abusive. The tenant covertly recorded the exchange on their phone.
The tenant produced a 111-call made to police shortly afterward, claiming that they had been threatened by someone using a chainsaw.
The tenant denied the alleged incidents in which it was claimed that they had abused other contractors, producing covert recordings of each incident, except the allegation involving the spouting contractor. As with the other incidents, the tenant denied acting in a threatening or abusive manner
The landlord noted that none of the recordings bore a time stamp, and none appeared to be complete records of the incidents. The landlord accepted that there was a small tree in the tenant’s garden but could not identify its type. No 14-day breach notices have been issued during the tenancy.
The tenant stated that, as someone vulnerable to the vagaries of the private rental market, they relied on social housing and would not intentionally do anything to jeopardise their tenure, adding that they had no convictions for violent offending.
The landlord submitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish the elements under section 55(1)(c)(iii), and insufficient grounds to refuse termination under section 55(2) of the Act, stating that it was highly likely that the conduct would be repeated. Law
Under section 55(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault and agent of the landlord.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines the meaning of agent: Agent, in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.
Assault is not defined in the Act.
Section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 defines assault as follows: 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 has , present ability to effect his purpose ; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.
Where the alleged assault consists of a verbal threat, it must be established that: • The tenant did or said something that amounted to a threat to apply force to the landlord’s agent, and • The tenant intended to threaten the agent, and • The tenant had the present ability to carry out the threat or caused the agent to believe that they did. (see R v Kerr [1988] NZLR 270 (CA))
In matters before the Tribunal, the onus is on the landlord to establish each of the above elements on the balance of probabilities. All of the elements must be proven.
Under section 55(2) of the Act the Tribunal may decline to terminate under 55(1)(c)(iii) if, and only if, it is satisfied that (where capable): • the breach has been remedied. • the landlord has been compensated for any loss; and • it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind.
In McLeod v Housing New Zealand Ltd, High Court Auckland AP50 – SW01, 16 July 2001, the Court considered that the discretion in 55(2) is only available to the Tribunal if all three limbs were satisfied.
However, in Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV – 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, the Court held that if the breach was one that could not be remedied, such as an assault, then the first limb of the test could be set aside, and the Tribunal could go on to consider the two remaining limbs in 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind. Analysis
There is no dispute that, at the material time, the contractor was an agent of the landlord.
The onus is on the landlord to establish each of the legal elements on the balance of probabilities, and all of the elements must be proven.
The contractor alleges that the tenant swore at them and pointed a metal bar at their chest and had admitted that this was intended as a threatening act. The tenant denies that this occurred. This is a case of the contractor’s word against the tenant’s, and neither version of events can be preferred over the other.
There are no independent witnesses to the alleged threat of assault outside the tenant’s property.
Both witnesses state that, while at the vehicle, the tenant was threatening and abusive. Although the covert recording produced is not date-stamped and may not capture the entire exchange, I am satisfied that it records a significant portion of the interaction. Having listened to the recording, I find that the tenant was not acting in an abusive or threatening manner.
The statements produced in support of the anti-social notices issued are unsigned and undated. Further, the covert recordings made by the tenant cast doubt on claims that, on other occasions, the tenant had been threatening and abusive.
A tenant may choose not to challenge an anti-social notice for a variety of reasons; and a failure to do so does not necessarily mean that they accept the allegations. Having observed the tenant give evidence, I accept their statement that they would not intentionally jeopardise their tenancy, and that the incident arose from a misunderstanding on the tenant’s part. Decision
As stated, the onus rests with the landlord to establish the elements of assault. In this case, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant committed an act intending to threaten the contractor. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.
It is apparent that the tenant is inquisitive about activities occurring within the complex, even when they do not directly concern them, which can lead to misunderstandings and potential conflict. Going forward, it would be prudent for the tenant to adhere to their undertaking not to approach contractors directly, and raise any concerns with the landlord or, if unresolved, with the Tribunal. A failure to do so may jeopardise the tenancy.
No orders for suppression are sought, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406328 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 14, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406328 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 14, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions