What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5451336?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of JASON WHETU CAMPBELL at Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5451336?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451336?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5451336?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of JASON WHETU CAMPBELL at Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5451336?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451336?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451336 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of JASON WHETU CAMPBELL at Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
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 breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and s.56 (1) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is a 1-bedroom stand-alone property within a complex comprising of 41 other Kainga Ora properties. The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2023.
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
The landlord provided statements from the complaints.
At approximately 12:30 pm on 30 November 2025, a tenant (“Mr A”) who resides at the complex, was working on a car in the car park area. Mr. Campbell approached Mr A who was sitting in the car and asked why he was there. He then attempted to pull Mr A out of the car. Mr. Campbell punched Mr A to the right temple. Mr A walked away. Mr. Campbell followed Mr A to his unit.
Approximately half an hour later, Mr A returned to work on the car, Mr. Campbell came back and said, “I'm going to smash your head in.” Mr A contacted the police. The Police subsequently attended. No charges were laid. The neighbour suffered some bruising to his forehead. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iii) and (v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: (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:... (iii) any agent of the landlord; (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes 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 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.”
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 the tenant not only assaulted Mr A by punching him but also threatened him.
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.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the term of the tenancy. Mr. Campbell has been issued with three anti-social behaviour notices under s.55A RTA. There have been reports of intimidating and threatening behaviour by Mr. Campbell. A neighbour reported that while sitting outside her door with her son and his girlfriend, Mr. Campbell approached them and threatened to smash the neighbour’s teeth and kill her and her son. Mr. Campbell has also been reported to be hostile and aggressive towards the landlord’s staff members.
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.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim under s.55(1)(c) RTA for the assault or threat to a visitor as a “visitor” is not one of the parties referred to in s.55(1)(c) (i) to (v) RTA. Section 56
Section 56 of the RTA allows Kāinga Ora to apply for termination of a tenancy, and the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – (a) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the tenant’s obligations under the RTA; and (b) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach after being issued a 14-day notice to remedy the breach (not applicable where the breach is not capable of remedy); and (c) The breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Kainga Ora is making an application under section 56 RTA to terminate the tenancy for breaches of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the RTA as well as breaching clause 9 of her Tenancy Agreement.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. Clause 9 of her Tenancy Agreement also states “you need to respect the peace, comfort and privacy of your neighbours.”
As well as the assault incident on 30 November 2025, there have been other recorded instances where the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of other residents.
An incident occurred on 26 December 2025 in the shared driveway to the complex. Mr. Campbell threatened to kill a visitor of another tenant in the complex. Mr. Campbell stood in front of the visitor’s car holding a machete. Mr. Campbell shouted at the visitor “I'm going to kill you.” The visitor managed to drive off and the police were called. Charges were subsequently laid against Mr. Campbell of threatening to kill/causing grievous bodily harm and behaving threateningly. Pleas of guilty were entered by Mr. Campbell to the charges.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA provides that a tenant shall not cause or permit any with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Mr Campbell has breached his obligations by interfering with the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy by acting in an intimidating, aggressive, and threatening manner towards the tenant’s visitor. Having a visitor is part of a tenant’s peace and comfort.
These continuous and repeated breaches are ongoing and impacting on the right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other Kāinga Ora tenants in the complex. One of the complainants has had to be transferred to other premises due to their fear. It would be inequitable of the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451336 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451336 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton,

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