What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473973 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton,

How much money was awarded in case 5473973?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473973?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13448816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473973 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton,

How much money was awarded in case 5473973?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473973?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13448816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473973 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton, Christchurch 8025, Guise Lane Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Thursday 23 April 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds represented the landlord.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy on the basis that Mr Clifford assaulted and/or threatened to assault other tenants of the landlord who are also residents of the Guise Lane complex.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The relevant law is found in section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant caused or permitted any person to assault, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises. There is limited discretion (set out in section 55(2) of the Act) to not terminate the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claims that on 17 March 2026 Mr Clifford threatened to assault Mr Curwood and he assaulted Ms McCullum by pushing/shoving her to the ground. Mr Curwood and Ms McCullum are neighbours of Mr Clifford. Mr Curwood resides in unit 1 which is close to Mr Clifford’s unit (unit 3), and Ms McCullum resides in unit 2 which adjoins Mr Clifford’s unit.
Mr Curwood and Ms McCullum provided a written signed statement and gave evidence in person at the hearing. I also heard evidence from Mr Curwood’s son, Luke Curwood, who was present at the time.
There was no dispute that Mr Curwood and Mr Clifford were arguing outside units 2 and 3. There was some dispute as to exactly where the argument took place, but it was somewhere close to the 1 to 1.5 meter wide garden strip between the two units. Mr Curwood claims that during the argument Mr Clifford, while standing approximately 30cm from him, raised his clenched fists in a fighting type manner. He said he believed that Mr Clifford was going to punch/hit him. He said that Ms McCullum came to where he and Mr Clifford were, and Mr Clifford stepped forward close to Ms McCullum and either shoved her or shouldered her to the ground. He said that she fell heavily backwards onto her bottom with her legs in the air.
Ms McCullum supported his evidence. She said that she was outside her front door when she saw Mr Clifford raise his fists and she thought that Mr Clifford was “looking at using violence”. She said that she went over to where Mr Curwood and Mr Clifford were and told Mr Clifford to stop it and go back inside (or words to that effect). She said that Mr Clifford then step towards her with fists raised and she thought that he was going to hit her. She said that, although she cannot remember whether Mr Clifford hit, pushed or shoved her, she remembers him making contact with her and this caused her to fall backwards onto the ground. The Police and an ambulance were called (Ms McCullum sustained an injury to her knee). Mr Clifford was arrested and has subsequently been charged with assault on a female. He is on bail (with non-association and other conditions) and is awaiting a court date.
Mr Clifford denies threatening to assault Mr Curwood. He accepts that he had his right hand clenched into a fist because he was angry with Mr Curwood but he said that he could not clench his left hand into a fist because he suffered a stroke last year which caused weakness on that side of his body. He also denies touching Ms McCullum. He said that Ms McCullum (who is 70 years old) is unsteady on her feet and was not using her walking stick when she came outside during the altercation with Mr Clifford. He said that she simply trip/fell forwards into the garden.
I find, on the evidence before me, that Mr Clifford did assault Ms McCullum by pushing or shoving her causing her to fall backwards. I prefer the evidence of Ms McCullum and Mr Curwood over that of Mr Clifford. Mr Clifford accepts that he was drinking before the incident occurred and continued drinking after. He was also less sure about his recall of what happened.
On the other hand, Ms McCullum and Mr Curwood were both certain and consistent in their evidence that Ms McCullum did not trip or fall forwards as claimed by Mr Clifford, rather she fell backwards as a direct result of Mr Clifford making contact with her. Their evidence was also supported by Mr Gilmore. Mr Gilmore was stranding approximately 3 to 4 meters from the garden strip between units 1 and 2 and said that he had a clear view of the incident. He said that he saw Mr Clifford push Ms McCullum and she fell backwards to the ground.
This is sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55(1) of the Act. However, for completeness I add that the evidence supports that that it is more likely than not that Mr Clifford also threatened to assault Mr Curwood by raising his fists in a manner that caused Mr Clifford (and Ms McCullum) to believe he was going to punch/hit him. Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion in section 55(2) of the Act in Mr Clifford’s favour?
Section 55(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied if it is the type of breach that can be remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind: section 55(2) of the Act.
A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. However, the High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand HC Christchurch CIV- 2004-409-717, 2 July 2004 held that this does not mean that the discretion becomes spent. The High Court considered that if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set aside and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues (compensation for loss and likelihood of a further breach).
The third issue, likelihood of a further breach, is the key focus. There is no question of compensation for loss here.
Mr Clifford is currently receiving treatment (including residential rehabilitation treatment) for his issues with alcohol, and he expressed his remorse over the incident and the injuries Ms McCullum sustained (he does not accept he caused her injuries but he said he is sorry she sustained injuries).
I accept that Mr Clifford is genuinely sorry for the incident (the argument between him and Mr Curwood) and the injuries Ms McCullum sustained. I also accept that he is now getting professional help with his drinking and other issues, and if he had not been drinking the incident would not have occurred.
However, after carefully balancing all the evidence I find that this is not an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in Mr Clifford’s favour. Of particular concern is that Mr Clifford continues to deny that he did assault Ms McCullum and likely did threaten to assault Mr Curwood. Without a recognition of his behaviour on that day there is in my view a likelihood that he will commit a further breach of the same kind. Also of concern was his evidence that he has difficulties or personality conflicts with other tenants in the complex including Mr Curwood but particularly his son Luke. This also increases the likelihood that a similar incident may occur again. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton, Christchurch 8025, Guise Lane Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Thursday 23 April 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds represented the landlord.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy on the basis that Mr Clifford assaulted and/or threatened to assault other tenants of the landlord who are also residents of the Guise Lane complex.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The relevant law is found in section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant caused or permitted any person to assault, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises. There is limited discretion (set out in section 55(2) of the Act) to not terminate the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claims that on 17 March 2026 Mr Clifford threatened to assault Mr Curwood and he assaulted Ms McCullum by pushing/shoving her to the ground. Mr Curwood and Ms McCullum are neighbours of Mr Clifford. Mr Curwood resides in unit 1 which is close to Mr Clifford’s unit (unit 3), and Ms McCullum resides in unit 2 which adjoins Mr Clifford’s unit.
Mr Curwood and Ms McCullum provided a written signed statement and gave evidence in person at the hearing. I also heard evidence from Mr Curwood’s son, Luke Curwood, who was present at the time.
There was no dispute that Mr Curwood and Mr Clifford were arguing outside units 2 and 3. There was some dispute as to exactly where the argument took place, but it was somewhere close to the 1 to 1.5 meter wide garden strip between the two units. Mr Curwood claims that during the argument Mr Clifford, while standing approximately 30cm from him, raised his clenched fists in a fighting type manner. He said he believed that Mr Clifford was going to punch/hit him. He said that Ms McCullum came to where he and Mr Clifford were, and Mr Clifford stepped forward close to Ms McCullum and either shoved her or shouldered her to the ground. He said that she fell heavily backwards onto her bottom with her legs in the air.
Ms McCullum supported his evidence. She said that she was outside her front door when she saw Mr Clifford raise his fists and she thought that Mr Clifford was “looking at using violence”. She said that she went over to where Mr Curwood and Mr Clifford were and told Mr Clifford to stop it and go back inside (or words to that effect). She said that Mr Clifford then step towards her with fists raised and she thought that he was going to hit her. She said that, although she cannot remember whether Mr Clifford hit, pushed or shoved her, she remembers him making contact with her and this caused her to fall backwards onto the ground. The Police and an ambulance were called (Ms McCullum sustained an injury to her knee). Mr Clifford was arrested and has subsequently been charged with assault on a female. He is on bail (with non-association and other conditions) and is awaiting a court date.
Mr Clifford denies threatening to assault Mr Curwood. He accepts that he had his right hand clenched into a fist because he was angry with Mr Curwood but he said that he could not clench his left hand into a fist because he suffered a stroke last year which caused weakness on that side of his body. He also denies touching Ms McCullum. He said that Ms McCullum (who is 70 years old) is unsteady on her feet and was not using her walking stick when she came outside during the altercation with Mr Clifford. He said that she simply trip/fell forwards into the garden.
I find, on the evidence before me, that Mr Clifford did assault Ms McCullum by pushing or shoving her causing her to fall backwards. I prefer the evidence of Ms McCullum and Mr Curwood over that of Mr Clifford. Mr Clifford accepts that he was drinking before the incident occurred and continued drinking after. He was also less sure about his recall of what happened.
On the other hand, Ms McCullum and Mr Curwood were both certain and consistent in their evidence that Ms McCullum did not trip or fall forwards as claimed by Mr Clifford, rather she fell backwards as a direct result of Mr Clifford making contact with her. Their evidence was also supported by Mr Gilmore. Mr Gilmore was stranding approximately 3 to 4 meters from the garden strip between units 1 and 2 and said that he had a clear view of the incident. He said that he saw Mr Clifford push Ms McCullum and she fell backwards to the ground.
This is sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55(1) of the Act. However, for completeness I add that the evidence supports that that it is more likely than not that Mr Clifford also threatened to assault Mr Curwood by raising his fists in a manner that caused Mr Clifford (and Ms McCullum) to believe he was going to punch/hit him. Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion in section 55(2) of the Act in Mr Clifford’s favour?
Section 55(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied if it is the type of breach that can be remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind: section 55(2) of the Act.
A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. However, the High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand HC Christchurch CIV- 2004-409-717, 2 July 2004 held that this does not mean that the discretion becomes spent. The High Court considered that if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set aside and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues (compensation for loss and likelihood of a further breach).
The third issue, likelihood of a further breach, is the key focus. There is no question of compensation for loss here.
Mr Clifford is currently receiving treatment (including residential rehabilitation treatment) for his issues with alcohol, and he expressed his remorse over the incident and the injuries Ms McCullum sustained (he does not accept he caused her injuries but he said he is sorry she sustained injuries).
I accept that Mr Clifford is genuinely sorry for the incident (the argument between him and Mr Curwood) and the injuries Ms McCullum sustained. I also accept that he is now getting professional help with his drinking and other issues, and if he had not been drinking the incident would not have occurred.
However, after carefully balancing all the evidence I find that this is not an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in Mr Clifford’s favour. Of particular concern is that Mr Clifford continues to deny that he did assault Ms McCullum and likely did threaten to assault Mr Curwood. Without a recognition of his behaviour on that day there is in my view a likelihood that he will commit a further breach of the same kind. Also of concern was his evidence that he has difficulties or personality conflicts with other tenants in the complex including Mr Curwood but particularly his son Luke. This also increases the likelihood that a similar incident may occur again. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473973 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473973 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 6 Guise Lane, Hillmorton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions