What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439482 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 5439482?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439482?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193567-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439482 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 5439482?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439482?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193567-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439482 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439482 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

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 Joshua Jones at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Joshua Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The hearing is adjourned.
A further 120 minutes should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter, scheduled before me by video hearing on the next available date.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a social worker.
The landlord has applied for. • Termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). • Termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on s.55(1)(b) RTA.
The balance of the landlord’s claims are adjourned for consideration at a later date.
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2025 and is current.
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. Landlord’s evidence
Joshua Jones and Brendon Knight were the tenants. There is no formal written tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided screen shots of WhatsApp messages that she had received from Joshua Jones. The messages contained threats to people who are not tenants. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to deal with those threats.
The message to the landlord also contained the following ”I’m going to chemical burn brendons eyes like they done to me tomorrow” (sic) Not surprisingly, the landlord was most upset with this and tried to contact the relevant authorities. The incident was reported to the police. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assaults and threats of assault. It reads: Section 55 (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 the case of 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.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered 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. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.” Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, (which was not disputed by the tenant), I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Jones threatened to assault Brendon Knight, another occupier of the premises.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 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 s. 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 threat that took place as extremely serious. It has had a significant impact on Mr Knight who has now left the premises. The landlord’s evidence included extensive messages from the tenant on how he intended to assault other people who were not tenants. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Jones will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he return to the premises.
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 immediately.
The second limb of the landlord’s application is under s.55(1)(b) RTA. That section provides; (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under the section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that- (b) the tenant has caused or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises; “Premises” is defined at s.2 RTA as “includes...... (a) any part of any premises; (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; (c) Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.” Section 55(4) RTA extends the definition in that section of premises to include “facilities”. Facilities are defined in s.2 RTA to include all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise then as part of the premises that are subject of the agreement.
The landlord in her evidence explained that the damage caused by the tenant was damage to the property of the other tenant Brendan Knight. Damage of that nature does not fall within the provisions of s.55(1)(b) RTA which relates to damage to the premises. It does not include damage to the possessions of another tenant. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlord and tenant. It does not have jurisdiction to consider claims between tenants. The claim is dismissed.
The hearing is adjourned for consideration of the remaining claims by the landlord. As the tenancy is terminated as a result of this order, the remaining claims seem to be limited to a claim that the tenant has used the premises for unlawful purposes and rent arrears.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.
The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the place, date, and time for the next hearing.
As the landlord [The applicant/s]has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439482 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

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 Joshua Jones at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Joshua Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The hearing is adjourned.
A further 120 minutes should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter, scheduled before me by video hearing on the next available date.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a social worker.
The landlord has applied for. • Termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). • Termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on s.55(1)(b) RTA.
The balance of the landlord’s claims are adjourned for consideration at a later date.
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2025 and is current.
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. Landlord’s evidence
Joshua Jones and Brendon Knight were the tenants. There is no formal written tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided screen shots of WhatsApp messages that she had received from Joshua Jones. The messages contained threats to people who are not tenants. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to deal with those threats.
The message to the landlord also contained the following ”I’m going to chemical burn brendons eyes like they done to me tomorrow” (sic) Not surprisingly, the landlord was most upset with this and tried to contact the relevant authorities. The incident was reported to the police. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assaults and threats of assault. It reads: Section 55 (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 the case of 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.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered 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. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.” Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, (which was not disputed by the tenant), I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Jones threatened to assault Brendon Knight, another occupier of the premises.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 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 s. 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 threat that took place as extremely serious. It has had a significant impact on Mr Knight who has now left the premises. The landlord’s evidence included extensive messages from the tenant on how he intended to assault other people who were not tenants. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Jones will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he return to the premises.
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 immediately.
The second limb of the landlord’s application is under s.55(1)(b) RTA. That section provides; (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under the section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that- (b) the tenant has caused or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises; “Premises” is defined at s.2 RTA as “includes...... (a) any part of any premises; (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; (c) Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.” Section 55(4) RTA extends the definition in that section of premises to include “facilities”. Facilities are defined in s.2 RTA to include all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise then as part of the premises that are subject of the agreement.
The landlord in her evidence explained that the damage caused by the tenant was damage to the property of the other tenant Brendan Knight. Damage of that nature does not fall within the provisions of s.55(1)(b) RTA which relates to damage to the premises. It does not include damage to the possessions of another tenant. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlord and tenant. It does not have jurisdiction to consider claims between tenants. The claim is dismissed.
The hearing is adjourned for consideration of the remaining claims by the landlord. As the tenancy is terminated as a result of this order, the remaining claims seem to be limited to a claim that the tenant has used the premises for unlawful purposes and rent arrears.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.
The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the place, date, and time for the next hearing.
As the landlord [The applicant/s]has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439482 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439482 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions