What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412812 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5412812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13003105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412812 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5412812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13003105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412812 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details. The detail of the order may be discussed with affected neighbours.
The landlord’s application for termination is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the fixed term tenancy on the grounds of behaviour of the tenant which has been unsettling and disturbing to neighbours. This behaviour includes behaviour which can be seen as being intimidatory. However, the question for me is whether the behaviour included threats of assault.
The relevant background is: a. The tenancy began on 20 October 2025. b. The tenant suffers from various mental health issues for which he has been receiving care. Unfortunately, shortly before the tenancy began he lost access to his mental health provider and has not been receiving the medication he had previously. c. Incidents were reported on 23 November and 5 December 2025, and 13 January 2026, involving yelling during the early hours of the morning. The initial description included allegations that there was music involved. However, the evidence of the neighbour who appeared as a witness and of the tenant is that the behaviour is the tenant having loud outbursts while on his own. It also appears that alcohol is a factor. d. On 25 November 2025, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant advising that his behaviour was in breach of his obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). e. The most significant events occurred on 4 and 5 December 2025. The neighbour who appeared as a witness reports that at approximately 11 pm on 4 December the tenant was in the back yard of the tenancy and was yelling loudly. The neighbour, who was trying to sleep in his bedroom which is adjacent to the backyard, yelled to the tenant to “shut the f**k up”. The tenant apologised and quietened down. The following day early in the evening the tenant did what has been described as a haka in the back garden and yelled abuse at the neighbour. This continued for approximately half an hour. About 8 pm the tenant was outside the neighbour’s property when the neighbour went to collect his wife from work. The neighbour reports that the tenant asked them to “take his s**t outside” and told the neighbour he could “really f**k him up”. The neighbour said that the tenant was drunk and had our bloodied nose as he appeared to have fallen and injured himself. f. On 13 January 2026, the tenant is reported to have been out on the back garden swearing and yelling at neighbours that he wanted to be left alone it was reported to be ranting. g. The tenant has provided a video of another neighbour which is reported to involve the neighbour saying that he had no issues of the tenant. However, the audio was not sufficient to make out what the neighbour was saying, and the landlord has provided a text from the neighbour alleging that he felt pressured into giving this statement. h. The tenant’s support person has advised that he has an urgent meeting with a mental health provider and expects to be back on his medication imminently.
S 55 (1) (c) RTA: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, 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: ... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. ... (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 the Housing New Zealand 1 the High Court discussed the application of these provisions. In that case the tenant had made comments threatening the life of an employee of the landlord. The question before the court was whether threats of this nature were such that the Tribunal must order termination, or if there was a second discretionary question from s55(2) as to whether or not the Tribunal had to consider whether there was a risk of further breaches in future. The question arose due to earlier cases which had found that threats of assault were breaches which were not capable of remedy.
The court found that the three elements set out in s55(2) are separate questions to be determined if relevant. Therefore, even when the breach cannot be remedied the questions of compensation or the risk of further breach had to be considered. 2 The considerations here follow from the balance which needs to be struck between the peace and safety of neighbours, and a tenant’s ability to have a stable place to live. In Collins Justice Keane pointed out that this discretion was necessary in instances where there may be a one-off incident or technical breach where an injustice would arise if termination were to follow automatically.
The issues I need to consider are: a. Did the tenant threaten to assault a neighbour? b. Is there a risk of further breach?
The evidence shows that the tenant had behaved in an abusive and at times intimidatory way towards neighbours. However, the test here is whether there was a threat of assault, behaviour falling short of such a threat does not satisfy the requirements for termination. The events of 5 December 2025, referred to at paragraph [3] (e) above involved comments from the tenant to “take his s**t outside” and told the neighbour he could “really f**k him up”. The circumstances are such that the first of these comments involves an implied threat, and the second in context was a threat of violence. I find that there was a breach and the first issue is made out. 1 Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 2 At paragraphs [37]-[39]
I now need to satisfy myself as to whether there is a risk of further threats. I note: a. the tenant was off his medication and was using alcohol when the incidents occurred; b. there was only a single incident when threats were made or implied; c. there were further event involving intimidation, but not threats; and d. the tenant’s support person advises that the tenant will be resuming medication imminently.
Based on this I am satisfied, albeit by a thin margin, that a repeat is unlikely. However, I note that further similar incidents could well tip the facts to a point where termination is justified, and caution the tenant accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the fixed term tenancy on the grounds of behaviour of the tenant which has been unsettling and disturbing to neighbours. This behaviour includes behaviour which can be seen as being intimidatory. However, the question for me is whether the behaviour included threats of assault.

The relevant background is: a. The tenancy began on 20 October 2025. b. The tenant suffers from various mental health issues for which he has been receiving care. Unfortunately, shortly before the tenancy began he lost access to his mental health provider and has not been receiving the medication he had previously. c. Incidents were reported on 23 November and 5 December 2025, and 13 January 2026, involving yelling during the early hours of the morning. The initial description included allegations that there was music involved. However, the evidence of the neighbour who appeared as a witness and of the tenant is that the behaviour is the tenant having loud outbursts while on his own. It also appears that alcohol is a factor. d. On 25 November 2025, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant advising that his behaviour was in breach of his obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). e. The most significant events occurred on 4 and 5 December 2025. The neighbour who appeared as a witness reports that at approximately 11 pm on 4 December the tenant was in the back yard of the tenancy and was yelling loudly. The neighbour, who was trying to sleep in his bedroom which is adjacent to the backyard, yelled to the tenant to “shut the f**k up”. The tenant apologised and quietened down. The following day early in the evening the tenant did what has been described as a haka in the back garden and yelled abuse at the neighbour. This continued for approximately half an hour. About 8 pm the tenant was outside the neighbour’s property when the neighbour went to collect his wife from work. The neighbour reports that the tenant asked them to “take his s**t outside” and told the neighbour he could “really f**k him up”. The neighbour said that the tenant was drunk and had our bloodied nose as he appeared to have fallen and injured himself. f. On 13 January 2026, the tenant is reported to have been out on the back garden swearing and yelling at neighbours that he wanted to be left alone it was reported to be ranting. g. The tenant has provided a video of another neighbour which is reported to involve the neighbour saying that he had no issues of the tenant. However, the audio was not sufficient to make out what the neighbour was saying, and the landlord has provided a text from the neighbour alleging that he felt pressured into giving this statement. h. The tenant’s support person has advised that he has an urgent meeting with a mental health provider and expects to be back on his medication imminently.

S 55 (1) (c) RTA: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, 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: ... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. ... (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 the Housing New Zealand 1 the High Court discussed the application of these provisions. In that case the tenant had made comments threatening the life of an employee of the landlord. The question before the court was whether threats of this nature were such that the Tribunal must order termination, or if there was a second discretionary question from s55(2) as to whether or not the Tribunal had to consider whether there was a risk of further breaches in future. The question arose due to earlier cases which had found that threats of assault were breaches which were not capable of remedy.

The court found that the three elements set out in s55(2) are separate questions to be determined if relevant. Therefore, even when the breach cannot be remedied the questions of compensation or the risk of further breach had to be considered. 2 The considerations here follow from the balance which needs to be struck between the peace and safety of neighbours, and a tenant’s ability to have a stable place to live. In Collins Justice Keane pointed out that this discretion was necessary in instances where there may be a one-off incident or technical breach where an injustice would arise if termination were to follow automatically.

The issues I need to consider are: a. Did the tenant threaten to assault a neighbour? b. Is there a risk of further breach?

The evidence shows that the tenant had behaved in an abusive and at times intimidatory way towards neighbours. However, the test here is whether there was a threat of assault, behaviour falling short of such a threat does not satisfy the requirements for termination. The events of 5 December 2025, referred to at paragraph [3] (e) above involved comments from the tenant to “take his s**t outside” and told the neighbour he could “really f**k him up”. The circumstances are such that the first of these comments involves an implied threat, and the second in context was a threat of violence. I find that there was a breach and the first issue is made out. 1 Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 2 At paragraphs [37]-[39]

I now need to satisfy myself as to whether there is a risk of further threats. I note: a. the tenant was off his medication and was using alcohol when the incidents occurred; b. there was only a single incident when threats were made or implied; c. there were further event involving intimidation, but not threats; and d. the tenant’s support person advises that the tenant will be resuming medication imminently.

Based on this I am satisfied, albeit by a thin margin, that a repeat is unlikely. However, I note that further similar incidents could well tip the facts to a point where termination is justified, and caution the tenant accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412812 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412812 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions