What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463331 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 5463331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13389539-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463331 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 5463331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13389539-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463331 — 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 and the tenancy address.
The tenancy of at is terminated, and possession is granted to , at 11.59 pm on Sunday 12 April 2026.

Reasons

The tenant, [the tenant/s] attended the hearing which was held by video- conference.
[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing for the landlord. [The landlord’s representative] called [Witness 1] and [Witness 2] as witnesses. They are both [the tenant/s] neighbours.
[The tenant/s] and [Witness 1] live in the two units of a duplex, [address suppressed], respectively. [Witness 2] lives in the next house down the road to [Witness 1], which is [Address suppressed].
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under the following provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”): a. Section 55(1)(c)(v) for the tenant assaulting a neighbour, and b. Section 56 with reference to sections 40(2)(c) and 40(3A)(d) of the RTA, for the tenant interfering with the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment.
The standard of proof required of an applicant in the Tenancy Tribunal is “on the balance of probabilities”. This means the party bringing the claim must persuade the Tribunal that what they are claiming is more likely than not to be correct. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs, as well as the honest oral evidence of the parties, all play an important part of in reaching this burden. The Tribunal will weigh conflicting information from the parties in reaching a decision.
For me to find the claim proved, I must determine on the balance of probabilities either that [the tenant/s] assaulted [Witness 1], or that he interfered with the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment.
[Witness 1] provided a written statement and gave oral evidence today.
In [Witness 1]’s statement he sets out the circumstances as being that on 30 January 2026 at approximately 3.00 am, [the tenant/s] was making a noise outside [Witness 1]’s bedroom. When [Witness 1] opened his window to ask [the tenant/s] what he was doing, [the tenant/s] was abusive. At about 10.00 am that day, [the tenant/s]’s dog jumped into [Witness 1]’s yard. [Witness 1] returned the dog, which drew verbal abuse from [the tenant/s]. Between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm on the same day, [Witness 1] was inside when he heard a thud against the wall. He went outside to speak to [the tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] swung a tomahawk at [Witness 1]. [Witness 1] raised his arm to block the strike. [Witness 1] received bruising to his arm. He has had fears for his safety ever since.
In his oral evidence, [Witness 1] said that at about 8.00 pm he heard a thud outside his bedroom and he yelled out “What are you up to?” [the tenant/s] told him to come outside and when [Witness 1] did, [the tenant/s] swung a hatchet at him. The handle of the hatchet struck [Witness 1]’s arm and the blade of the tomahawk was near his head. [Witness 1] said he then pulled out some of the bamboo fence [the tenant/s] had been erecting and struck back at [the tenant/s].
In response, [the tenant/s] noted, and I agree, there are some inconsistencies in the two versions of the event given by [Witness 1], regarding time. I consider this minor and not particularly noteworthy.
[Witness 2] provided a written statement and gave oral evidence today.
In his oral evidence [Witness 2] said that from two days before Christmas until 30 January 2026, he and other people in the neighbourhood had been constantly on tenterhooks as [the tenant/s] had been walking up and down the street shouting and being highly abusive to anyone he encountered.
[Witness 2] said that on 30 January 2026 he had heard [the tenant/s] picking on [Witness 1]’s partner who was inside her house. [The tenant/s] would start quiet but get louder and louder and then run out of steam before starting again a while later. [The tenant/s] was very loud and using terrible language. From 4.00 pm it began to get more serious. [Witness 2] said he did not hear [Witness 1] or his partner being abusive to [the tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] then began building a large fire. At about 10.30 pm [Witness 2] was in bed when he heard a huge noise. He dialled 111 first and then went outside and saw a large amount of people in [Witness 1]’s backyard. [The tenant/s] was not there.
While [Witness 2] was giving his version of events, [the tenant/s] began quietly repeating “Tell the truth [Witness 2], tell the truth.” I asked [the tenant/s] to desist.
At one point while [the tenant/s] was responding to [Witness 2]’s version of events, [the tenant/s] began talking about how [Witness 1]’s partner had wanted to have a relationship with [the tenant/s] and how he had had to rebuff her. I considered his comments to be taunting in nature, and only vaguely relevant to this claim. I asked him to return to responding to [Witness 2]’s statement.
[Witness 2]’s written statement contains similar information, plus information about what he had also heard from other people, which in my view carries little weight. There is nothing that I consider to be notably inconsistent or goes any further than his oral evidence today.
[The tenant/s] said that on 30 January 2026 [Witness 1]’s partner had been being abusive to him while she was inside her house and he was outside building a bamboo trellis between their units. He said he was wearing headphones and she was angry that he was ignoring her. He said that for weeks he had been enduring comments from neighbours about different people wanting to attack him. He said [Witness 1] had taken his puppies and fed them. He said that because of the threats being made to him, he had called the police approximately five times that day, but the police had just laughed at him.
[The tenant/s] said he owned a very sharp tomahawk which he used for breaking down wild pigs and sheep and to chop up pallets for his firepit. He said he made a fire in his firepit but it was only small.
[The tenant/s] said that in the evening, [Witness 1] attacked him with a piece of [the tenant/s]’s bamboo fence, in [the tenant/s]’s back yard. [The tenant/s] denies having his tomahawk at that point but said he was wearing knuckledusters in self-defence in case a person tried to attack him. [The tenant/s] said he has suffered from neck and spine injuries and has been on crutches for the last year.
At one point [the tenant/s] also began to focus again on [Witness 1]’s partner having wanted to have a relationship with him. He said this was why she was angry with him on 30 September 2026. He said [Witness 1]’s partner was trying to get his attention from inside their house while he was working. Again I asked [the tenant/s] to move on.
[Witness 2] said in response that he had never seen [the tenant/s] using crutches. He also said that at one point the fire in [the tenant/s]’s firepit had flames two metres high.
There is much information from [Witness 1], [Witness 2] and [the tenant/s] that is largely agreed. This includes the following points: a. Leading up to 30 January 2026 and on 30 January 2026, [the tenant/s] was in a heightened emotional state. The reasons for this differ between [the tenant/s] and the other parties. b. There was a dispute about noise at 3.00 am on 30 January 2026. c. There was arguing between [the tenant/s] and [Witness 1]’s partner that continued throughout the day of 30 January 2026. d. The arguing involved [Witness 1]’s partner being inside her house and [the tenant/s] being outside his. e. [The tenant/s]’s dogs went into [Witness 1]’s yard. f. There was an altercation between [the tenant/s] and [Witness 1] in the evening on 30 January 2026. g. [The tenant/s] used either knuckledusters or a tomahawk during the altercation. h. [Witness 1] used a piece of bamboo from [the tenant/s]’s trellis during the altercation.
[The tenant/s] said that after [Witness 1] attacked him with a piece of bamboo, [the tenant/s] used knuckledusters in self-defence.
[Witness 1] said that he was lured outside and then attacked with a tomahawk before defending himself with a piece of bamboo.
When I consider the information before me, I find [Witness 1]’s version of events more believable. I find it plausible that [the tenant/s] was in a heightened emotional state, working outside and arguing for an extended period with [Witness 1]’s partner who was inside her own house, and who had with him knuckledusters, would have initiated a physical confrontation with [Witness 1].
I find it less plausible that [Witness 1], after listening to [the tenant/s] working noisily outside from the early hours of the morning and throughout the day, and believing [the tenant/s] to be violent by nature and in an agitated state, would go outside with the intention to start a fight with [the tenant/s], on his own in the dark.
That is not to say that I accept everything [Witness 1] says is correct, or that whenever there is a dispute in the information I always prefer [Witness 1]’s version. For instance, I am not persuaded that [the tenant/s] had a tomahawk and not knuckledusters. [Witness 1] says he was attacked with a tomahawk, and [the tenant/s] says he was wearing knuckledusters.
It is also possible that the fight began when [Witness 1] attacked [the tenant/s] with a piece of bamboo. But if that is what happened, for [the tenant/s]’s response to be self-defence, his response must be proportionate to the threat as [the tenant/s] perceived it to be. I am not persuaded that [the tenant/s] honestly perceived [Witness 1] to be of such a threat to [the tenant/s], that using knuckledusters in response was a proportionate response.
When I consider the information as I have heard it, I determine on the balance of probabilities that [the tenant/s] assaulted [Witness 1] on 30 January 2026.
I find the claim proved.
Having determined this, I do not intend to address the second claim made by [the landlord’s representative], that of [the tenant/s] having breached the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment, as both claims lead to the same result.
[the landlord’s representative] did not give a date from when he is asking the termination of [the tenant/s]’s tenancy to take effect. Nor did [the tenant/s] say what timeframe would suit him best.
[The tenant/s] is currently in remand and he has concerns that his premises has already been burgled.
I consider it important that the termination take effect as soon possible without denying [the tenant/s] the opportunity to challenge this decision or denying him the opportunity to organise someone to take possession of his belongings. I am therefore setting the date as 11.59 pm on Sunday 12 April. This gives [the tenant/s] seven working days and two weekends to make arrangements as he sees fit.

Reasons

The tenant, [the tenant/s] attended the hearing which was held by video- conference.

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing for the landlord. [The landlord’s representative] called [Witness 1] and [Witness 2] as witnesses. They are both [the tenant/s] neighbours.

[The tenant/s] and [Witness 1] live in the two units of a duplex, [address suppressed], respectively. [Witness 2] lives in the next house down the road to [Witness 1], which is [Address suppressed].

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under the following provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”): a. Section 55(1)(c)(v) for the tenant assaulting a neighbour, and b. Section 56 with reference to sections 40(2)(c) and 40(3A)(d) of the RTA, for the tenant interfering with the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment.

The standard of proof required of an applicant in the Tenancy Tribunal is “on the balance of probabilities”. This means the party bringing the claim must persuade the Tribunal that what they are claiming is more likely than not to be correct. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs, as well as the honest oral evidence of the parties, all play an important part of in reaching this burden. The Tribunal will weigh conflicting information from the parties in reaching a decision.

For me to find the claim proved, I must determine on the balance of probabilities either that [the tenant/s] assaulted [Witness 1], or that he interfered with the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment.

[Witness 1] provided a written statement and gave oral evidence today.

In [Witness 1]’s statement he sets out the circumstances as being that on 30 January 2026 at approximately 3.00 am, [the tenant/s] was making a noise outside [Witness 1]’s bedroom. When [Witness 1] opened his window to ask [the tenant/s] what he was doing, [the tenant/s] was abusive. At about 10.00 am that day, [the tenant/s]’s dog jumped into [Witness 1]’s yard. [Witness 1] returned the dog, which drew verbal abuse from [the tenant/s]. Between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm on the same day, [Witness 1] was inside when he heard a thud against the wall. He went outside to speak to [the tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] swung a tomahawk at [Witness 1]. [Witness 1] raised his arm to block the strike. [Witness 1] received bruising to his arm. He has had fears for his safety ever since.

In his oral evidence, [Witness 1] said that at about 8.00 pm he heard a thud outside his bedroom and he yelled out “What are you up to?” [the tenant/s] told him to come outside and when [Witness 1] did, [the tenant/s] swung a hatchet at him. The handle of the hatchet struck [Witness 1]’s arm and the blade of the tomahawk was near his head. [Witness 1] said he then pulled out some of the bamboo fence [the tenant/s] had been erecting and struck back at [the tenant/s].

In response, [the tenant/s] noted, and I agree, there are some inconsistencies in the two versions of the event given by [Witness 1], regarding time. I consider this minor and not particularly noteworthy.

[Witness 2] provided a written statement and gave oral evidence today.

In his oral evidence [Witness 2] said that from two days before Christmas until 30 January 2026, he and other people in the neighbourhood had been constantly on tenterhooks as [the tenant/s] had been walking up and down the street shouting and being highly abusive to anyone he encountered.

[Witness 2] said that on 30 January 2026 he had heard [the tenant/s] picking on [Witness 1]’s partner who was inside her house. [The tenant/s] would start quiet but get louder and louder and then run out of steam before starting again a while later. [The tenant/s] was very loud and using terrible language. From 4.00 pm it began to get more serious. [Witness 2] said he did not hear [Witness 1] or his partner being abusive to [the tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] then began building a large fire. At about 10.30 pm [Witness 2] was in bed when he heard a huge noise. He dialled 111 first and then went outside and saw a large amount of people in [Witness 1]’s backyard. [The tenant/s] was not there.

While [Witness 2] was giving his version of events, [the tenant/s] began quietly repeating “Tell the truth [Witness 2], tell the truth.” I asked [the tenant/s] to desist.

At one point while [the tenant/s] was responding to [Witness 2]’s version of events, [the tenant/s] began talking about how [Witness 1]’s partner had wanted to have a relationship with [the tenant/s] and how he had had to rebuff her. I considered his comments to be taunting in nature, and only vaguely relevant to this claim. I asked him to return to responding to [Witness 2]’s statement.

[Witness 2]’s written statement contains similar information, plus information about what he had also heard from other people, which in my view carries little weight. There is nothing that I consider to be notably inconsistent or goes any further than his oral evidence today.

[The tenant/s] said that on 30 January 2026 [Witness 1]’s partner had been being abusive to him while she was inside her house and he was outside building a bamboo trellis between their units. He said he was wearing headphones and she was angry that he was ignoring her. He said that for weeks he had been enduring comments from neighbours about different people wanting to attack him. He said [Witness 1] had taken his puppies and fed them. He said that because of the threats being made to him, he had called the police approximately five times that day, but the police had just laughed at him.

[The tenant/s] said he owned a very sharp tomahawk which he used for breaking down wild pigs and sheep and to chop up pallets for his firepit. He said he made a fire in his firepit but it was only small.

[The tenant/s] said that in the evening, [Witness 1] attacked him with a piece of [the tenant/s]’s bamboo fence, in [the tenant/s]’s back yard. [The tenant/s] denies having his tomahawk at that point but said he was wearing knuckledusters in self-defence in case a person tried to attack him. [The tenant/s] said he has suffered from neck and spine injuries and has been on crutches for the last year.

At one point [the tenant/s] also began to focus again on [Witness 1]’s partner having wanted to have a relationship with him. He said this was why she was angry with him on 30 September 2026. He said [Witness 1]’s partner was trying to get his attention from inside their house while he was working. Again I asked [the tenant/s] to move on.

[Witness 2] said in response that he had never seen [the tenant/s] using crutches. He also said that at one point the fire in [the tenant/s]’s firepit had flames two metres high.

There is much information from [Witness 1], [Witness 2] and [the tenant/s] that is largely agreed. This includes the following points: a. Leading up to 30 January 2026 and on 30 January 2026, [the tenant/s] was in a heightened emotional state. The reasons for this differ between [the tenant/s] and the other parties. b. There was a dispute about noise at 3.00 am on 30 January 2026. c. There was arguing between [the tenant/s] and [Witness 1]’s partner that continued throughout the day of 30 January 2026. d. The arguing involved [Witness 1]’s partner being inside her house and [the tenant/s] being outside his. e. [The tenant/s]’s dogs went into [Witness 1]’s yard. f. There was an altercation between [the tenant/s] and [Witness 1] in the evening on 30 January 2026. g. [The tenant/s] used either knuckledusters or a tomahawk during the altercation. h. [Witness 1] used a piece of bamboo from [the tenant/s]’s trellis during the altercation.

[The tenant/s] said that after [Witness 1] attacked him with a piece of bamboo, [the tenant/s] used knuckledusters in self-defence.

[Witness 1] said that he was lured outside and then attacked with a tomahawk before defending himself with a piece of bamboo.

When I consider the information before me, I find [Witness 1]’s version of events more believable. I find it plausible that [the tenant/s] was in a heightened emotional state, working outside and arguing for an extended period with [Witness 1]’s partner who was inside her own house, and who had with him knuckledusters, would have initiated a physical confrontation with [Witness 1].

I find it less plausible that [Witness 1], after listening to [the tenant/s] working noisily outside from the early hours of the morning and throughout the day, and believing [the tenant/s] to be violent by nature and in an agitated state, would go outside with the intention to start a fight with [the tenant/s], on his own in the dark.

That is not to say that I accept everything [Witness 1] says is correct, or that whenever there is a dispute in the information I always prefer [Witness 1]’s version. For instance, I am not persuaded that [the tenant/s] had a tomahawk and not knuckledusters. [Witness 1] says he was attacked with a tomahawk, and [the tenant/s] says he was wearing knuckledusters.

It is also possible that the fight began when [Witness 1] attacked [the tenant/s] with a piece of bamboo. But if that is what happened, for [the tenant/s]’s response to be self-defence, his response must be proportionate to the threat as [the tenant/s] perceived it to be. I am not persuaded that [the tenant/s] honestly perceived [Witness 1] to be of such a threat to [the tenant/s], that using knuckledusters in response was a proportionate response.

When I consider the information as I have heard it, I determine on the balance of probabilities that [the tenant/s] assaulted [Witness 1] on 30 January 2026.

I find the claim proved.

Having determined this, I do not intend to address the second claim made by [the landlord’s representative], that of [the tenant/s] having breached the reasonable peace of another person residing in the neighbourhood in circumstances that amount to harassment, as both claims lead to the same result.

[the landlord’s representative] did not give a date from when he is asking the termination of [the tenant/s]’s tenancy to take effect. Nor did [the tenant/s] say what timeframe would suit him best.

[The tenant/s] is currently in remand and he has concerns that his premises has already been burgled.

I consider it important that the termination take effect as soon possible without denying [the tenant/s] the opportunity to challenge this decision or denying him the opportunity to organise someone to take possession of his belongings. I am therefore setting the date as 11.59 pm on Sunday 12 April. This gives [the tenant/s] seven working days and two weekends to make arrangements as he sees fit.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463331 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463331 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions