Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5437108 — 14-day notice
Decided 30 Mar 2026 · Published 30 Mar 2026 · Application 5437108
- 14-day notice
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The tenancy of Quentin Pora at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted remotely on 30 March 2026.
- The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for an assault and a breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and s.56 (1) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
- The tenancy is a 1-bedroom apartment in a three-level apartment complex consisting of 18 apartments. The landlord rents out all the apartments in the complex. The tenancy commenced on 25 January 2024.
- As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings.
- The usual rules of evidence do not apply to Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal may consider any evidence provided. The most important consideration is the weight to be attached to evidence. Generally, the evidence of witnesses who are present at the hearing and available to be cross examined, will carry the greatest weight. Written and signed witness statements carry a reduced weight. In this case, the evidence of the landlord is supported by a written, signed statement from the complainant tenant (“Mr A”). The only evidence from the other tenant is contained in the Police report which records a brief statement made by the tenant. Landlord’s evidence
- The landlord provided a statement from Mr A.
- Mr A has an apartment directly below the tenant’s apartment.
- At approximately 10 pm on 10 January 2026, Mr A says that loud music was coming from the tenant’s apartment. Mr A made contact with noise control to complain.
- Mr A then went to the door of the tenant’s apartment. Mr A knocked on the door. The door was opened by the tenant. Mr A stayed at the door but said that he could see a group of people, numbering approximately 8 or 9 within the apartment.
- Mr A asked if they could keep the noise down. The tenant and his guests responded by swearing at Mr A . Mr A said that the tenant approached him in an aggressive manner. Mr A kicked out his leg to try to keep the tenant at a distance. No contact was made. The tenant has the kicked Mr A in the chest. Two of the guests then kicked Mr A in the legs, causing him to fall to the ground. Mr A returned to his apartment and made a call to the Police.
- The only version of events from the tenant is contained in a police report of their interview with the tenant. The report states; “Quinton advised he had friends over and didn't believe he was playing music that loud. - Quinton stated Mr A was rude and hateful when he approached his apartment and made homophobic comments towards him. - Quinton stated they argued about the music and Mr A became aggressive. - Quinton stated Mr A pushed and kicked him in the chest. - Quinton stated they both returned to their apartments. - He declined any medical attention. Nil injuries sighted. - He did not wish to make a statement.”
- Medical reports were provided in evidence. The report writers indicate that the injuries to Mr A’s back, wrist and chest were consistent with the assault described by Mr A in his evidence. Termination The law
- The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv)RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It provides: (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part; (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section 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))].
- “Assault” is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he 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 has the present ability to effect his purpose.
- In Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under s. 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. Analysis
- Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenant and his guests assaulted Mr A by kicking him. The tenant is responsible for the acts of his guests where he has caused or permitted the act.
- I consider that the written statement from Mr A carries greater weight than the police report by the tenant.
- The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA are established.
- The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
- I regard the assault and threat that took place as serious and unprovoked. It was an assault by a group of people on a single person.
- Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the term of the tenancy. Evidence of complaints of aggressive and anti-social behaviour by the tenant was provided by the landlord.
- I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
- The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.
- The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.