What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419590 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn,

How much money was awarded in case 5419590?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419590?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13108180-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419590 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn,

How much money was awarded in case 5419590?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419590?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13108180-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419590 — Exemplary damages

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419590 — net $928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises	$900.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$928.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$928.00

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042, Greenhurst Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 2.30pm on Wednesday 11 February 2026.

[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing. The tenant is in prison on remand and no request or arrangements were made for his attendance remotely.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

This tenancy began in November 2024. The landlord was aware, before granting the tenancy, that the tenant had a history of drug use. Being a social housing provider, it was willing to grant the tenancy in the hope and expectation that the tenant would not possess or use drugs in the premises.

The landlord tested the premises for methamphetamine (meth) before the tenancy began. The test was negative.

In November 2025, Corrections asked the landlord if the tenant could be bailed to the premises. Corrections informed the landlord that the tenant was charged with possession of meth. The landlord agreed to the tenant returning to the premises and arranged to test them for meth contamination.

The premises tested positive for meth. The highest individual result was

3μ/100cm². That level is just below the level of 15μ/100cm² that the Tribunal uses as the threshold above which contamination from meth use is likely to be harmful to human health.

The landlord said that at that level it will still decontaminate the premises to bring the level of contamination to near zero for the next tenant of the premises.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

If the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a breach notice on the tenant.

The tenant has breached his obligations by using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, namely possession and use of meth.

This breach is not capable of remedy because, due to its nature and seriousness, it has irremediably damaged the landlord’s trust that the tenant will use the premises lawfully and not intentionally damage them.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reason just given and because the landlord will incur substantial costs of decontaminating the premises which it will not recover from the tenant. As well, the tenant was given the chance to use the premises as a responsible tenant and he has not done so.

I note that the tenant’s probation officer has written to the Tribunal in effect asking the it to consider not terminating the tenancy to allow the tenant to return to the premises if he receives a community-based sentence. The officer makes the point that if the tenant loses his home, it will likely increase the risk of another relapse.

I accept the point, but this Tribunal’s function is to apply the law and exercise its discretion judicially and fairly to both parties. In this case, the seriousness and effect of the tenant’s breach on the landlord outweigh any other relevant consideration.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.

It is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to use or possess meth. Meth is a class A drug, and its use causes very considerable harm in the community.

The evidence proves that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.

Given the seriousness of the unlawful act and the effect it will have on the landlord, I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages in the middle of the range. This case is not at the most serious end of the range. I have therefore awarded $900.

The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419590 — net $928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises	$900.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$928.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$928.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042, Greenhurst Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 2.30pm on Wednesday 11 February 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing. The tenant is in prison on remand and no request or arrangements were made for his attendance remotely.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
This tenancy began in November 2024. The landlord was aware, before granting the tenancy, that the tenant had a history of drug use. Being a social housing provider, it was willing to grant the tenancy in the hope and expectation that the tenant would not possess or use drugs in the premises.
The landlord tested the premises for methamphetamine (meth) before the tenancy began. The test was negative.
In November 2025, Corrections asked the landlord if the tenant could be bailed to the premises. Corrections informed the landlord that the tenant was charged with possession of meth. The landlord agreed to the tenant returning to the premises and arranged to test them for meth contamination.
The premises tested positive for meth. The highest individual result was
3μ/100cm². That level is just below the level of 15μ/100cm² that the Tribunal uses as the threshold above which contamination from meth use is likely to be harmful to human health.
The landlord said that at that level it will still decontaminate the premises to bring the level of contamination to near zero for the next tenant of the premises.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
If the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a breach notice on the tenant.
The tenant has breached his obligations by using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, namely possession and use of meth.
This breach is not capable of remedy because, due to its nature and seriousness, it has irremediably damaged the landlord’s trust that the tenant will use the premises lawfully and not intentionally damage them.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reason just given and because the landlord will incur substantial costs of decontaminating the premises which it will not recover from the tenant. As well, the tenant was given the chance to use the premises as a responsible tenant and he has not done so.
I note that the tenant’s probation officer has written to the Tribunal in effect asking the it to consider not terminating the tenancy to allow the tenant to return to the premises if he receives a community-based sentence. The officer makes the point that if the tenant loses his home, it will likely increase the risk of another relapse.
I accept the point, but this Tribunal’s function is to apply the law and exercise its discretion judicially and fairly to both parties. In this case, the seriousness and effect of the tenant’s breach on the landlord outweigh any other relevant consideration.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
It is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to use or possess meth. Meth is a class A drug, and its use causes very considerable harm in the community.
The evidence proves that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Given the seriousness of the unlawful act and the effect it will have on the landlord, I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages in the middle of the range. This case is not at the most serious end of the range. I have therefore awarded $900.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419590 — Exemplary damages at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419590 — Exemplary damages at Flat 3, 1 Takaro Avenue, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions