What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456392 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 5456392?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456392?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13271851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456392 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 5456392?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456392?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13271851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5456392 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details, the witnesses’ names and the address of the premises.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended the hearing by video call. The tenant attended the hearing by phone
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 EVIDENCE

The landlord had three tenants give evidence. Witness statements were emailed to the Tribunal and the tenant before the hearing, together with photographs and video recordings. [WITNESS 1]
[Witness 1] (Mr S) says that he lives at the complex with the tenant. Ms S says that his block is next door to where the tenant resides. Mr S says on 20 February 2026 at around 4 pm he noticed the tenant in his garden staring into his unit. He says he started to record the tenant and provided the recording in evidence. Mr S says that when the tenant saw him filming, he walked away. Mr S says the tenant walked a short distance and stopped and continued to stare at his unit. Mr S says he felt intimidated.
Mr S says that evening he watched the tenant destroy a terracotta garden pot outside another unit by kicking it and saw the tenant pick up what looked like an old radiator and throw it on the ground at another tenant's doorstep. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.
Mr S that the tenant later then pulled tomato plants from his garden and stole his watering can and garden shovel. He provided a video recording of the tenant kicking the dirt in his garden and walking away with his watering can and garden shovel. Mr S says the tenant was then doing ninja moves while holding scissors outside his home.
Mr S says the tenant then came to his door with an object (he is not sure what but said it was a weapon of some sort) and that he tried to physically open the locked door. Mr S says the tenant did not get in and left. Mr S says the Police were called and the tenant has been charged with wilful damage and theft. The tenant has bail conditions not to contact Mr S. I therefore asked questions of Mr S on behalf of the tenant. [WITNESS 2]
Another tenant, [Witness 2] (Mr P), gave evidence that he also lives in the same block with the tenant. He says on 20 February 2026, during the afternoon, the tenant was banging and kicking at his front door for over an hour and trying the door handle on the locked door. Mr P says the tenant was kicking his door. He notes that both doors are damaged. Mr P says the tenant eventually moved to his back door and tried to get into his home through the back window and he had to push the tenant back through the window. Mr P says he called the Police, but they did not think the tenant’s behaviour warranted criminal charges. Mr P says he and the other tenants in the complex fear the tenant. Mr P says he believes the tenant has stolen several of his belongings, but did not have direct knowledge of that, ie he has not seen him steal anything of his. Mr P produced photographs of the damage to his door. It appears to be scratched and have a hole it consistent with being kicked. [WITNESS 3]
[Witness 3] (Mr R) was the third and final neighbouring tenant to give evidence. Mr R said on 20 February 2026 at around 1pm he witnessed the tenant with a bong, and he told him to take it inside. Mr R says the tenant was annoyed about being told to go inside and came at him doing karate kicks. Mr R says at least 2 kicks hit him. Mr R says he kicked back in self defence. Mr R says the tenant went to get his bong that Mr R had kicked out of his hands and then he pulled out a pocketknife and was coming towards him waving it. Mr R says the tenant smashed some of his garden pots and tried to kick him again but missed him. Mr R says he did not call the Police but called the landlord for assistance. Mr R says shortly thereafter the tenant was outside his home pulling faces, calling him and his friends’ “wankers” and “cocksuckers”. Mr S says he and his friends pinned the tenant down and removed his pocketknife.

GENERAL CONCERNS

All the neighbouring tenants gave evidence about the tenant walking about the complex (shared outside area) with a knife, throwing knives and attacking a tree (which the tenant acknowledged doing – but declined to explain) and there was also evidence about the tenant digging a deep hole (over the tenant’s head) to stand in on the property. TENANT ‘S POSITION
The tenant opposes the claim for termination. The tenant largely disputes the evidence provided by the neighbouring tenants. He suggested there was another person causing havoc at the complex.
The tenant accepted that he knocked a tomato plant, knocking the dirt, as he left Mr S premise’s which he says was by accident (although later acknowledged doing it to show Mr S is a snitch) The tenant accepted taking Mr S’s shovel. The tenant accepted doing ninja moves. The tenant denied being intimidating to Mr S, he says he was knocking the door, just trying to say hello. He denies trying to open the locked door.
The tenant says that Mr P is a drug user, and he was being a good neighbour to check in on him. The tenant accepted banging on Mr P’s door but says it was something like three times over two hours. The tenant accepted trying to reach Mr P through the window, getting up through the window on his elbows, he says to check on Mr P.
The tenant accepted throwing a knife at the tree on the shared area numerous times a week. He did not accept that this would concern the neighbours.
The tenant denied assaulting Mr R, calling Mr R and his friends names or having a pocketknife. TERMINATION – SECTION 55 – ASSAULT
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. (emphasis added)
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 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.

ASSAULT OF NEIGHBOUR

Mr R was clear and consistent in his evidence of an assault. The tenant disagreed with Mr’s evidence but declined to cross examine Mr R. In addition, Mr R was sympathetic to the tenant's potential mental health issues likely contributing to his behaviour. I have commented further about the evidence later in this decision and rely on my findings in relation the credibility of the parties evidence in respect of the claim for termination under s 55.
Because the landlord has provided a written statement from Mr R who was the victim of the alleged assault and Mr R has provided persuasive oral evidence of the assault on the 20 February 2026, I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has likely assaulted the neighbouring tenant, Mr R.
Given the seriousness of the assault and behaviour and that the tenant did not provide any reassurance that it might not occur again, I am not satisfied this is a breach that could be remedied, and I am also not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit another act of this kind. 3
Accordingly, the landlord has proven the grounds to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s 55 of the RTA. 4 TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56
I will address the claim for termination under section 56 also. Given the allegations from the landlord here, the Tribunal could order a termination of the 3 see Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004-409-717, 2 July 2004 4 RTA, section 55(2). tenancy under section 56, which is a general termination provision. Section 56 is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) and the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
What this means is the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 5 Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean 5 RTA, section 56(1). Huff v City Central Property Management 6 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). the breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. (emphasis added)
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 7 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The issues I need to consider in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 8 6 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 7 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 9 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 10

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA says 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The tenant is under a Compulsory Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the mental health act. He spent a lot of the hearing interrupting, swearing and at times laughing at the evidence. He made concerning comments about knives (for example: “yous wish my knife fell out, I would have had two fucking knives and fucking cut yous up”).
Mr S, Mr P and Mr R all gave written evidence supported with oral evidence after giving the Tribunal’s promise to tell the truth. Videos and photographs were provided where possible to corroborate their evidence. There evidence was clear and consistent. I therefore prefer their evidence where evidence has been disputed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of his neighbouring tenants. The video recordings show the tenant taking the watering can and spade from Mr S’s home and kicking his garden. There is a photograph of the tenant holding scissors taken by Mr S outside Mr S’s home. The video recordings show the tenant outside the neighbouring tenant’s homes, including looking into Mr S’s home and Mr R’s home (when throwing a knife at the tree) which would have been unsettling for them. I accept that the tenant has likely tried to enter the Mr S’s and Mr P’s premises in an intimidating and aggressive manner. I consider it likely that the tenant’s torso was well into Mr P’s window, and this would have alarmed him.
As noted above, I find it likely the tenant kicked Mr R, and I consider it likely the tenant had a pocketknife on him and subsequently called Mr R names.
The landlord has proven the tenant has breached his obligations to not interfere with the reasonable peace comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other 8 RTA, 56(1)(a). 9 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 10 RTA, s 56(1)(a). tenants,

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Given the nature and impact of the breaches I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached his obligations, and the breach is not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. (a) the history of the tenancy: The tenancy commenced in April 2025. It is therefore a relatively short tenancy. The landlord (and neighboring witnesses) says that there have been other issues with the tenant however there is no evidence that there have been previous formal warnings. (b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: It cannot be said that there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to comply with his obligations following repeated warnings and there is no evidence of previous warnings. Mr P said after the tenant was released from Police custody (after being arrested in relation to the events of 20 February 2026) that the tenant was seen throwing a knife at the tree. (c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the tenants inability to take responsibility for his breaches and there being no evidence before the Tribunal of community supports in place to assist him to ensure compliance. (d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, however I acknowledge that the tenant, being under the CTO, may have mental health issues affecting his ability to make decisions. (e) the conduct of the landlord: The landlord is a social housing provider. I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. (f) the gravity of the breach: The breaches are at the high end of the scale of breaches of the tenants’ obligations. Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. The landlord has had to prevent any employees and contractors from attending at the complex while the tenant is at the premises, due to the severity of the safety concerns the tenant is presenting. (g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.

OUTCOME

The tenancy is terminated.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator. This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order.

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. 11

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. 11 RTA, s 102 (4)(a).
I have also ordered name suppression of the tenant. While the tenant has been unsuccessful in defending this matter, I have referred to him being subject to a CTO and there are criminal proceedings at this time.
I consider that the tenant’s interest in having these matters not be in the public domain outweigh the public interest in publication.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details, the witnesses’ names and the address of the premises.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended the hearing by video call. The tenant attended the hearing by phone
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 EVIDENCE

The landlord had three tenants give evidence. Witness statements were emailed to the Tribunal and the tenant before the hearing, together with photographs and video recordings. [WITNESS 1]
[Witness 1] (Mr S) says that he lives at the complex with the tenant. Ms S says that his block is next door to where the tenant resides. Mr S says on 20 February 2026 at around 4 pm he noticed the tenant in his garden staring into his unit. He says he started to record the tenant and provided the recording in evidence. Mr S says that when the tenant saw him filming, he walked away. Mr S says the tenant walked a short distance and stopped and continued to stare at his unit. Mr S says he felt intimidated.
Mr S says that evening he watched the tenant destroy a terracotta garden pot outside another unit by kicking it and saw the tenant pick up what looked like an old radiator and throw it on the ground at another tenant's doorstep. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.
Mr S that the tenant later then pulled tomato plants from his garden and stole his watering can and garden shovel. He provided a video recording of the tenant kicking the dirt in his garden and walking away with his watering can and garden shovel. Mr S says the tenant was then doing ninja moves while holding scissors outside his home.
Mr S says the tenant then came to his door with an object (he is not sure what but said it was a weapon of some sort) and that he tried to physically open the locked door. Mr S says the tenant did not get in and left. Mr S says the Police were called and the tenant has been charged with wilful damage and theft. The tenant has bail conditions not to contact Mr S. I therefore asked questions of Mr S on behalf of the tenant. [WITNESS 2]
Another tenant, [Witness 2] (Mr P), gave evidence that he also lives in the same block with the tenant. He says on 20 February 2026, during the afternoon, the tenant was banging and kicking at his front door for over an hour and trying the door handle on the locked door. Mr P says the tenant was kicking his door. He notes that both doors are damaged. Mr P says the tenant eventually moved to his back door and tried to get into his home through the back window and he had to push the tenant back through the window. Mr P says he called the Police, but they did not think the tenant’s behaviour warranted criminal charges. Mr P says he and the other tenants in the complex fear the tenant. Mr P says he believes the tenant has stolen several of his belongings, but did not have direct knowledge of that, ie he has not seen him steal anything of his. Mr P produced photographs of the damage to his door. It appears to be scratched and have a hole it consistent with being kicked. [WITNESS 3]
[Witness 3] (Mr R) was the third and final neighbouring tenant to give evidence. Mr R said on 20 February 2026 at around 1pm he witnessed the tenant with a bong, and he told him to take it inside. Mr R says the tenant was annoyed about being told to go inside and came at him doing karate kicks. Mr R says at least 2 kicks hit him. Mr R says he kicked back in self defence. Mr R says the tenant went to get his bong that Mr R had kicked out of his hands and then he pulled out a pocketknife and was coming towards him waving it. Mr R says the tenant smashed some of his garden pots and tried to kick him again but missed him. Mr R says he did not call the Police but called the landlord for assistance. Mr R says shortly thereafter the tenant was outside his home pulling faces, calling him and his friends’ “wankers” and “cocksuckers”. Mr S says he and his friends pinned the tenant down and removed his pocketknife.

GENERAL CONCERNS

All the neighbouring tenants gave evidence about the tenant walking about the complex (shared outside area) with a knife, throwing knives and attacking a tree (which the tenant acknowledged doing – but declined to explain) and there was also evidence about the tenant digging a deep hole (over the tenant’s head) to stand in on the property. TENANT ‘S POSITION
The tenant opposes the claim for termination. The tenant largely disputes the evidence provided by the neighbouring tenants. He suggested there was another person causing havoc at the complex.
The tenant accepted that he knocked a tomato plant, knocking the dirt, as he left Mr S premise’s which he says was by accident (although later acknowledged doing it to show Mr S is a snitch) The tenant accepted taking Mr S’s shovel. The tenant accepted doing ninja moves. The tenant denied being intimidating to Mr S, he says he was knocking the door, just trying to say hello. He denies trying to open the locked door.
The tenant says that Mr P is a drug user, and he was being a good neighbour to check in on him. The tenant accepted banging on Mr P’s door but says it was something like three times over two hours. The tenant accepted trying to reach Mr P through the window, getting up through the window on his elbows, he says to check on Mr P.
The tenant accepted throwing a knife at the tree on the shared area numerous times a week. He did not accept that this would concern the neighbours.
The tenant denied assaulting Mr R, calling Mr R and his friends names or having a pocketknife. TERMINATION – SECTION 55 – ASSAULT
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. (emphasis added)
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 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.

ASSAULT OF NEIGHBOUR

Mr R was clear and consistent in his evidence of an assault. The tenant disagreed with Mr’s evidence but declined to cross examine Mr R. In addition, Mr R was sympathetic to the tenant's potential mental health issues likely contributing to his behaviour. I have commented further about the evidence later in this decision and rely on my findings in relation the credibility of the parties evidence in respect of the claim for termination under s 55.
Because the landlord has provided a written statement from Mr R who was the victim of the alleged assault and Mr R has provided persuasive oral evidence of the assault on the 20 February 2026, I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has likely assaulted the neighbouring tenant, Mr R.
Given the seriousness of the assault and behaviour and that the tenant did not provide any reassurance that it might not occur again, I am not satisfied this is a breach that could be remedied, and I am also not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit another act of this kind. 3
Accordingly, the landlord has proven the grounds to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s 55 of the RTA. 4 TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56
I will address the claim for termination under section 56 also. Given the allegations from the landlord here, the Tribunal could order a termination of the 3 see Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004-409-717, 2 July 2004 4 RTA, section 55(2). tenancy under section 56, which is a general termination provision. Section 56 is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) and the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
What this means is the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 5 Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean 5 RTA, section 56(1). Huff v City Central Property Management 6 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). the breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. (emphasis added)
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 7 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The issues I need to consider in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 8 6 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 7 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 9 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 10

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA says 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The tenant is under a Compulsory Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the mental health act. He spent a lot of the hearing interrupting, swearing and at times laughing at the evidence. He made concerning comments about knives (for example: “yous wish my knife fell out, I would have had two fucking knives and fucking cut yous up”).
Mr S, Mr P and Mr R all gave written evidence supported with oral evidence after giving the Tribunal’s promise to tell the truth. Videos and photographs were provided where possible to corroborate their evidence. There evidence was clear and consistent. I therefore prefer their evidence where evidence has been disputed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of his neighbouring tenants. The video recordings show the tenant taking the watering can and spade from Mr S’s home and kicking his garden. There is a photograph of the tenant holding scissors taken by Mr S outside Mr S’s home. The video recordings show the tenant outside the neighbouring tenant’s homes, including looking into Mr S’s home and Mr R’s home (when throwing a knife at the tree) which would have been unsettling for them. I accept that the tenant has likely tried to enter the Mr S’s and Mr P’s premises in an intimidating and aggressive manner. I consider it likely that the tenant’s torso was well into Mr P’s window, and this would have alarmed him.
As noted above, I find it likely the tenant kicked Mr R, and I consider it likely the tenant had a pocketknife on him and subsequently called Mr R names.
The landlord has proven the tenant has breached his obligations to not interfere with the reasonable peace comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other 8 RTA, 56(1)(a). 9 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 10 RTA, s 56(1)(a). tenants,

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Given the nature and impact of the breaches I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached his obligations, and the breach is not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. (a) the history of the tenancy: The tenancy commenced in April 2025. It is therefore a relatively short tenancy. The landlord (and neighboring witnesses) says that there have been other issues with the tenant however there is no evidence that there have been previous formal warnings. (b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: It cannot be said that there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to comply with his obligations following repeated warnings and there is no evidence of previous warnings. Mr P said after the tenant was released from Police custody (after being arrested in relation to the events of 20 February 2026) that the tenant was seen throwing a knife at the tree. (c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the tenants inability to take responsibility for his breaches and there being no evidence before the Tribunal of community supports in place to assist him to ensure compliance. (d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, however I acknowledge that the tenant, being under the CTO, may have mental health issues affecting his ability to make decisions. (e) the conduct of the landlord: The landlord is a social housing provider. I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. (f) the gravity of the breach: The breaches are at the high end of the scale of breaches of the tenants’ obligations. Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. The landlord has had to prevent any employees and contractors from attending at the complex while the tenant is at the premises, due to the severity of the safety concerns the tenant is presenting. (g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.

OUTCOME

The tenancy is terminated.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator. This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order.

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. 11

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. 11 RTA, s 102 (4)(a).
I have also ordered name suppression of the tenant. While the tenant has been unsuccessful in defending this matter, I have referred to him being subject to a CTO and there are criminal proceedings at this time.
I consider that the tenant’s interest in having these matters not be in the public domain outweigh the public interest in publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456392 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456392 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE EVIDENCE

GENERAL CONCERNS

ASSAULT OF NEIGHBOUR

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

OUTCOME

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE EVIDENCE

GENERAL CONCERNS

ASSAULT OF NEIGHBOUR

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

OUTCOME

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions