How much money was awarded in case 5421509?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12986939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5421509?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12986939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421509 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421509 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details and the address of the tenancy.
The tenancy of Jade Heke at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Habitat For Humanity Northern Region Limited, at
59pm on Tuesday 3 February 2026.
Jade Heke must pay Habitat For Humanity Northern Region Limited $28 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds the tenant has assaulted the neighbour and for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 The Law -s 55
Section 55(1)(c) of RTA applies. It states: (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: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55 (2) of the RTA says: 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 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)).
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 or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning The evidence
The landlord said that the police attended at the property on 5 January 2026 following the tenant threatening to assault another neighbouring tenant of the landlord’s, [Suppressed] (Ms T) and physically striking Ms T. The threat of assault was by way of the tenant saying she would get someone over to sort them out (being Ms T and her partner).
The landlord provided an emailed statement from Ms T.
The landlord also provided a emailed statement from another neighbouring tenant [Suppressed] (Ms M) which says that she heard the tenant threatening Ms T and her partner and saw the tenant make physical contact with Ms T’s partner.
The landlord also played the security footage of the incident by sharing her screen during the remote hearing which showed the tenant engaging in an argument with Ms T and appears to hit her. The footage indicates that there was mutual fighting, however I accept that it is more likely than not, based on the written statements provided, that the tenant also threatened Ms T.
The landlord also said another neighbouring tenant heard the tenant threaten Ms T. The landlord said the video footage continues to show that the tenant was arrested by the Police. The landlord did not show this part of the security footage, but I accept this is more likely that not to have occurred on the oral evidence provided. The landlord said the tenant has not been seen at the tenancy premises since the incident. Outcome
Because the landlord has provided written statements, security footage, which the landlord was able to explain, oral evidence of a threat to assault and a assault I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault the neighbouring tenant.
Given the seriousness of the threat and behaviour and that the tenant did not attend the hearing to give evidence on this matter, I am not satisfied this is a breach that could be remedied, or if I am wrong about that in this case, I am also not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit another act of this kind. 3 Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated. 4
As I have terminated the tenancy pursuant to s 55 I do not need to consider the claim for termination pursuant to section 56. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the tenant pay the landlord the filing fee paid for the application. 5 Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
On my own initiative I have ordered suppression of the witnesses names and the address of the property as this is an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details and the address of the tenancy.

The tenancy of Jade Heke at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Habitat For Humanity Northern Region Limited, at

59pm on Tuesday 3 February 2026.

Jade Heke must pay Habitat For Humanity Northern Region Limited $28 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds the tenant has assaulted the neighbour and for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.

The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 The Law -s 55

Section 55(1)(c) of RTA applies. It states: (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: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.

Section 55 (2) of the RTA says: 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 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)).

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 or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning The evidence

The landlord said that the police attended at the property on 5 January 2026 following the tenant threatening to assault another neighbouring tenant of the landlord’s, [Suppressed] (Ms T) and physically striking Ms T. The threat of assault was by way of the tenant saying she would get someone over to sort them out (being Ms T and her partner).

The landlord provided an emailed statement from Ms T.

The landlord also provided a emailed statement from another neighbouring tenant [Suppressed] (Ms M) which says that she heard the tenant threatening Ms T and her partner and saw the tenant make physical contact with Ms T’s partner.

The landlord also played the security footage of the incident by sharing her screen during the remote hearing which showed the tenant engaging in an argument with Ms T and appears to hit her. The footage indicates that there was mutual fighting, however I accept that it is more likely than not, based on the written statements provided, that the tenant also threatened Ms T.

The landlord also said another neighbouring tenant heard the tenant threaten Ms T. The landlord said the video footage continues to show that the tenant was arrested by the Police. The landlord did not show this part of the security footage, but I accept this is more likely that not to have occurred on the oral evidence provided. The landlord said the tenant has not been seen at the tenancy premises since the incident. Outcome

Because the landlord has provided written statements, security footage, which the landlord was able to explain, oral evidence of a threat to assault and a assault I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault the neighbouring tenant.

Given the seriousness of the threat and behaviour and that the tenant did not attend the hearing to give evidence on this matter, I am not satisfied this is a breach that could be remedied, or if I am wrong about that in this case, I am also not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit another act of this kind. 3 Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated. 4

As I have terminated the tenancy pursuant to s 55 I do not need to consider the claim for termination pursuant to section 56. Filing fee

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the tenant pay the landlord the filing fee paid for the application. 5 Suppression

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

On my own initiative I have ordered suppression of the witnesses names and the address of the property as this is an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421509 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421509 — 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