What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418150?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Campbell Hunia at Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook,

How much money was awarded in case 5418150?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418150?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418150?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Campbell Hunia at Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook,

How much money was awarded in case 5418150?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418150?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418150 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Campbell Hunia at Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011, Berkeley Dallard Flats is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Toi Mahana, at 11.59 pm tomorrow Friday 23 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video and by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault an occupier of the building of which the premises form part. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decision. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided two written statements from the first witness (“J”) who also gave evidence by video as follows: a. Incident 1. On 9 December 2025 around 5.20 pm he took the lift from the fifth floor to the fourth floor. The tenant was already in the lift and appeared angry. Without any provocation the tenant verbally abused J and threatened to “put me in a place I would never come back from, c**t.” J asked “What have I done?”. The tenant clenched his fists, came towards J and said “I will kill you f*****g c**t.” When the lift doors opened, J exited quickly, fearful of his safety. b. Incident 2. Having got out of the lift J then witnessed the tenant “latch onto” the second witness (“D”) to whom he directed verbal abuse. D blew her alarm whistle and telephoned the police. c. Incident 3. The next day, 10 December 2025 at around 1 pm, J was in the courtyard to the complex enjoying a cup of tea with several tenants and staff associated with the complex. The tenant saw J, walked past the group but came back to verbally abuse J, swearing and clenching his fists. d. J explained that he knew who the tenant was by name but had no knowledge of him or previous interactions. He advised that the threats and abuse were completely unexpected. These incidents have had a serious impact on J and his mental health causing him to have trouble sleeping. He fears for his safety to such an extent that he is not living at the complex at present.
The landlord’s second witness D provided two written statements and evidence by telephone as follows: a. Incident 2. Around 5.20 pm on 9 December 2025 the tenant came out of the lift and approached her aggressively. She was concerned because the tenant had grabbed her in the past and she was fearful of the tenant who was clearly angry. She advised that the tenant stepped into her personal space and continued to approach her despite being asked to stop. She activated her personal alarm which failed to function. She then used her whistle to raise the alarm.
The landlord’s third witness (“S”) gave evidence by telephone as follows: a. Incident 2. She witnessed the tenant approach D in a confrontational and aggressive manner with his hands clenched in a fist. She did not see the tenant touch D but he would not let D move away. She heard D blow her whistle repeatedly. b. She saw J after he had left the lift and noticed that he was “a bit weird” and “a bit reserved” which was out of character. The next day J told her about the tenant threatening him in the lift by saying that the tenant would “put [J] in a place where there’s no coming back”.
The landlord confirmed that both J and D made complaints to it on 10 December 2025, and that it recorded those incidents in its log and obtained their statements.The landlord spoke to the tenant about the complaints and confirmed that this application would be made to the Tribunal.
The landlord provided a timeline of complaints made about the tenant from 23 August 2023 until the present incident. These involved making threats or threatening behaviour towards D and other tenants in the complex and an aggressive verbal altercation with a fireman which ended in the tenant pushing the fireman out of his apartment on 15 February 2025.
The landlord provided a copy of a 90-day termination notice issued to the tenant on 11 March 2025 in the hope that the tenant would change his behaviour. The landlord notified the tenant that it had decided not to enforce this termination by letter on 16 June 2025. That letter stated: “Your tenancy will remain under close monitoring, and full compliance with the terms and obligations of your tenancy agreement is expected at all times. We strongly encourage you to continue on this positive path and take tis opportunity to maintain stable housing.” The tenant’s evidence
The tenant’s response to the landlord’s evidence was as follows: a. He knew J and has never had an issue with him. b. At the hearing he claimed that neither Incident 1 nor 3 happened. He claimed that he was not at the complex on 10 December 2025. c. In his written statement to the Tribunal, he denied that Incident 2 occurred. d. At the hearing, he acknowledged that what he did was wrong in relation to Incident 2 and accepted that he verbally abused her because of past comments he alleged she had made and which he objected to strongly. e. He advised that he was not arrested by the police in relation to Incident 2. f. Despite this denial during the hearing, the tenant’s written statement to the Tribunal confirmed that Incident 3 occurred and that he said to J: “You need to wise up, bro, or somebody will wise you up.” g. Although each of the landlord’s witnesses had alleged that he was drunk, the tenant strenuously denied this as he is not allowed to drink alcohol as a term of his probation. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it accepts that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant threatened to assault J in the lift for the following reasons: a. J has provided the Tribunal with two written statements and verbal evidence that are consistent and compelling. b. There is no evidence that J has any ulterior motive in making the allegation. c. Nor is there evidence or any suggestion that landlord’s witnesses have colluded in their testimony. Each supports aspects of the others’ evidence which combined is plausible and credible. d. In contrast, the tenant was asked three times whether he made the threats to J before the tenant finally gave a blanket denial. The Tribunal draws a negative inference from the tenant’s evasion from answering the Tribunal’s direct questions regarding this incident. e. The demeanour and behaviour of the tenant immediately after Incident 1 during Incident 2 as confirmed by both D and S is consistent with that described by J in the lift during Incident 1. f. The tenant’s written statement submitted to the Tribunal denied that Incident 2 occurred but contradicted his evidence at the hearing when he first denied that it ever happened but also accepted that he had verbally abused her during the incident. Similarly, at the hearing the tenant denied that he was present during Incident 3 and yet his written statement confirmed his presence and the words he used. The tenant’s inconsistency has led the Tribunal to doubt the tenant’s credibility. g. The tenant accepted that he had verbally abused D. This confirmed the tenant’s frame of mind and behaviour immediately after Incident 1. It is reasonable to conclude that the tenant had the same angry and abusive attitude immediately before in the lift with J. h. The Tribunal therefore concludes on this evidence that the tenant threatened J in the lift as alleged and engaged in the abusive language alleged during Incidents 2 and 3.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenant behaved in a manner which J and D considered threatening in Incidents 2 and 3. However, no witness gave evidence that the tenant threatened to assault them during those incidents. There is a significant difference between feeling threatened and being verbally threatened with assault. While the tenant clenched his fists while swearing at J and D, it is not satisfied that the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault them during these incidents, although J and D were fearful of their safety.
During the hearing the tenant concentrated on the allegations that he was drunk rather than on the allegations that he had threatened or abused other tenants. His drunkenness or sobriety at the time of the incidents does not excuse the tenant’s behaviour. It is the fact of the threat and the intimidating, aggressive behaviour that is important in the Tribunal determining that the tenant’s tenancy must be terminated.
Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy, if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any occupier or neighbour of the premises.
Section 55(2) RTA provides the Tribunal with a discretion to refuse to order termination under subsection (1) 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 section 55 RTA applies.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, [2004] NZAR 665 his Honour Justice Keane, accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour’s view was that the discretion in section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. If the Court held that the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal should go on to consider the two remaining factors in section 55(2) RTA, 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.
In that case, the Court noted that to “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Here, the tenant threatened to assault J by using the words recorded in paragraph 6(a) above and the tenant gave evidence, confirmed by his removing himself from the accommodation, that he took the tenant’s threats seriously.
In the present circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
It remains to consider whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach by threatening to assault any other tenant in the complex.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that it is unlikely that the tenant will continue to threaten other tenants in the complex for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s log of incidents involving the tenant records a history of aggressive and intimidating behaviour to other tenants and staff, threats to other tenants, abusive language and a minor assault on the fireman. During the hearing the tenant did not deny that these incidents occurred. b. The landlord has given the tenant several second chances, including most recently, the withdrawal of the termination notice. On several occasions the tenant has been put on notice by the landlord of the likely serious consequences of his behaviour if it continued. He has failed to heed those warnings.
The Tribunal has therefore determined that the tenancy must be terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418150 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418150 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1019, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions