How much money was awarded in case 5406536?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406536?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406536?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891445-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5406536?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406536?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406536?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891445-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406536 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Theodore Eric Allen Henry, Archibald Joseph Arran Henry and Milo Dominic Willcock at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, Augusta Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter, at 11:59pm on 19 December 2025.
Theodore Eric Allen Henry, Archibald Joseph Arran Henry and Milo Dominic Willcock must pay Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter $28.00 immediately, being for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing. None of the named tenants attended and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of tenant breaches. Background
The fixed term tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025 and is due to end on 5 July 2026. The property is an apartment in a wider body corporate and the body corporate rules form part of the tenancy agreement.
Clause 44 of the tenancy agreement provides that:
No interference with neighbours The tenant acknowledges that they are bound by Section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, privacy, and comfort... of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Since the commencement of the tenancy, there have been several complaints about noise at the premises.
As a result of these complaints, during the five-month tenancy the landlord has issued five written notices to the tenant, summarised as follows: a. On 21 July 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that they have received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise from the property on 18 July. The disturbance was reported to Wellington City Council noise control at 5am on 19 July after repeated requests to turn down the music and for occupants to go inside the apartment to keep the noise down, attention was drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the notice states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature we will be forced to take further action”. b. On 4 August 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that they had received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise coming from the property on 1 and 2 August. The disturbance was reported to the body corporate who acknowledged they recently received a complaint about noise at the property. Attention was drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the notice states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature, we will be forced to take further action which may result in termination of your tenancy”. c. On 8 September 20225 – landlord advises the tenants that they had received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise from the property on 6 September, and had been notified by the body corporate representatives of this complaint, and this was the third breach notice for noise and general disturbance, the notice further states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature, we will be forced to take further action which may result in termination of your tenancy”. d. 20 October 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that complaints have been received by neighbours through the body corporate alleging excessive noise coming from the property on 17 October 2025. Attention is drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and clause 44 of the tenancy agreement, the notice states: “As this is the fourth breach of this nature since your tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025, we ask that you please be mindful of noise levels and the impact of any activity within the apartment on neighbouring residents”. e. On 1 December 2025 – the landlord advises the tenants that a complaint has been received about noise on 29 November 2025 at 1:52am. Attention is drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and clause 44 of the tenancy agreement. The notice states: “As this is the fifth breach of this nature since your tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025, we will have no option but to lodge a formal complaint with Tenancy Services.”
The landlord has provided a Wellington City Council issued notice dated 29 November 2025 at 1:52am that describes the noise as excessive, and they have also provided correspondence received by neighbours and the body corporate detailing the incidences referred to in the notices above.
On 4 December 2025 the landlord filed the claim with the Tribunal seeking termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the RTA. This aligns with clause 44 in the tenancy agreement.
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) RTA. 1
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 sufficiently 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. 1 For completeness, as this is a fixed term tenancy, there is no ability to terminate for anti-social behaviour in accordance with section 55A of the RTA.
The landlord says that here the breach was not capable of remedy. There was no requirement to remedy the noise within 14 days, as the effect of the breach had already impacted the neighbours.
They say there has been a persistent failure to remedy the breach, the effect of which cannot be undone. It is a breach incapable of remedy and that despite several notices there has been no attempt to comply by the tenants.
As a result, the landlord seeks immediate termination. They are particularly worried about the upcoming holiday period, and the impact the tenants’ actions could have on the neighbouring apartments.
There are two types of obligations on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with a breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management, 2 the District Court considered whether a breach of s48(4)(b) (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] HZDC 19229 at [46]-[47].
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied.
Where, however, the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Discussion
On review of the evidence provided, I consider that the tenant has clearly breached their obligations by causing an interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of neighbours.
The breach is not capable of remedy because there has been a persistent and ongoing series of breaches, where the tenant has been warned several times from the commencement of the tenancy and has failed to take any steps to remedy the breach, the effect of which cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. 3
The breach started the same month as the tenancy commenced, there have been persist failures despite warnings of further action being taken. The history of the continued breach, despite warning letters, make it unlikely that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future. The ongoing breaches after initial warnings, and further notices, therefore, must be considered intentional.
I consider that the landlord has acted fairly, offering several opportunities and the ability to end the fixed term tenancy early if apartment living wasn’t suitable and there has been a significant impact on the neighbours because of these persistent breaches. The landlord is also in breach of the body corporate rules as a result of the tenants’ breaches.
The tenancy is terminated, and immediate possession is granted to the landlord. 3 See Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] HZDC 19229.
Because Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 19 December 2025

Order

The tenancy of Theodore Eric Allen Henry, Archibald Joseph Arran Henry and Milo Dominic Willcock at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, Augusta Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter, at 11:59pm on 19 December 2025.

Theodore Eric Allen Henry, Archibald Joseph Arran Henry and Milo Dominic Willcock must pay Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter $28.00 immediately, being for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing. None of the named tenants attended and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of tenant breaches. Background

The fixed term tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025 and is due to end on 5 July 2026. The property is an apartment in a wider body corporate and the body corporate rules form part of the tenancy agreement.

Clause 44 of the tenancy agreement provides that:

No interference with neighbours The tenant acknowledges that they are bound by Section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, privacy, and comfort... of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

Since the commencement of the tenancy, there have been several complaints about noise at the premises.

As a result of these complaints, during the five-month tenancy the landlord has issued five written notices to the tenant, summarised as follows: a. On 21 July 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that they have received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise from the property on 18 July. The disturbance was reported to Wellington City Council noise control at 5am on 19 July after repeated requests to turn down the music and for occupants to go inside the apartment to keep the noise down, attention was drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the notice states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature we will be forced to take further action”. b. On 4 August 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that they had received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise coming from the property on 1 and 2 August. The disturbance was reported to the body corporate who acknowledged they recently received a complaint about noise at the property. Attention was drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the notice states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature, we will be forced to take further action which may result in termination of your tenancy”. c. On 8 September 20225 – landlord advises the tenants that they had received complaints from neighbours, alleging excessive noise from the property on 6 September, and had been notified by the body corporate representatives of this complaint, and this was the third breach notice for noise and general disturbance, the notice further states: “If we receive any further complaints of this nature, we will be forced to take further action which may result in termination of your tenancy”. d. 20 October 2025 – landlord advises the tenants that complaints have been received by neighbours through the body corporate alleging excessive noise coming from the property on 17 October 2025. Attention is drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and clause 44 of the tenancy agreement, the notice states: “As this is the fourth breach of this nature since your tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025, we ask that you please be mindful of noise levels and the impact of any activity within the apartment on neighbouring residents”. e. On 1 December 2025 – the landlord advises the tenants that a complaint has been received about noise on 29 November 2025 at 1:52am. Attention is drawn to section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and clause 44 of the tenancy agreement. The notice states: “As this is the fifth breach of this nature since your tenancy commenced on 3 July 2025, we will have no option but to lodge a formal complaint with Tenancy Services.”

The landlord has provided a Wellington City Council issued notice dated 29 November 2025 at 1:52am that describes the noise as excessive, and they have also provided correspondence received by neighbours and the body corporate detailing the incidences referred to in the notices above.

On 4 December 2025 the landlord filed the claim with the Tribunal seeking termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the RTA. This aligns with clause 44 in the tenancy agreement.

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) RTA. 1

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 sufficiently 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. 1 For completeness, as this is a fixed term tenancy, there is no ability to terminate for anti-social behaviour in accordance with section 55A of the RTA.

The landlord says that here the breach was not capable of remedy. There was no requirement to remedy the noise within 14 days, as the effect of the breach had already impacted the neighbours.

They say there has been a persistent failure to remedy the breach, the effect of which cannot be undone. It is a breach incapable of remedy and that despite several notices there has been no attempt to comply by the tenants.

As a result, the landlord seeks immediate termination. They are particularly worried about the upcoming holiday period, and the impact the tenants’ actions could have on the neighbouring apartments.

There are two types of obligations on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.

Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.

The situation is not as straightforward with a breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management, 2 the District Court considered whether a breach of s48(4)(b) (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] HZDC 19229 at [46]-[47].

It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied.

Where, however, the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Discussion

On review of the evidence provided, I consider that the tenant has clearly breached their obligations by causing an interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of neighbours.

The breach is not capable of remedy because there has been a persistent and ongoing series of breaches, where the tenant has been warned several times from the commencement of the tenancy and has failed to take any steps to remedy the breach, the effect of which cannot be undone.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. 3

The breach started the same month as the tenancy commenced, there have been persist failures despite warnings of further action being taken. The history of the continued breach, despite warning letters, make it unlikely that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future. The ongoing breaches after initial warnings, and further notices, therefore, must be considered intentional.

I consider that the landlord has acted fairly, offering several opportunities and the ability to end the fixed term tenancy early if apartment living wasn’t suitable and there has been a significant impact on the neighbours because of these persistent breaches. The landlord is also in breach of the body corporate rules as a result of the tenants’ breaches.

The tenancy is terminated, and immediate possession is granted to the landlord. 3 See Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] HZDC 19229.

Because Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited as agent for David Simon Carpenter has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 19 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406536 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406536 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406536 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406536 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 9, 254 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions