What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5477312?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tony Minhinnick at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5477312?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477312?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5477312?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tony Minhinnick at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5477312?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477312?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477312 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477312 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The tenancy of Tony Minhinnick at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Monday 22 June 2026.
Tony Minhinnick must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the filing fee of $28.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) by using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose, namely the use or possession of methamphetamine. This is stated to be a breach not capable of remedy. Background
This tenancy began on 18 October 2024. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is a unit within a group of units managed by the landlord.
Before the start of this tenancy, the landlord arranged for a baseline methamphetamine test, which was conducted on 24 September 2024 by Meth Test Canterbury Limited. The report following testing recorded the presence of methamphetamine at the level of 3.9 μg/100cm 2 . The landlord states that during the three week period before the tenancy started, access to the property was limited to its staff, who were conducting viewings for prospective tenants.
The landlord became concerned about activity within the neighbourhood, with reports indicating the tenant’s unit was associated with drug related activity and other anti-social behaviour.
The landlord arranged for testing for methamphetamine by Meth Test Canterbury Limited, and the report was completed on 25 March 2026. This was a detailed assessment, in which six samples were taken and analysed at Hill Laboratories. The individual sample results were as follows: • Kitchen/living – a (door frame)5.1 μg/100cm 2 • Kitchen living – b (wall)2.2 μg/100cm 2 • Bathroom – a (door)4.9 μg/100cm 2 • Bathroom – b (ceiling)1.49 μg/100cm 2 • Bedroom – a (door)4.6 μg/100cm 2 • Bedroom – b (wall)0.99 μg/100cm 2 The hearing
The landlord relied on the results from the testing conducted at the premises. The landlord states that the four locations sampled during the September 2024 baseline assessment were sampled again during the March 2026 assessment. This provides a direct and objective comparison between the state of the property before the tenancy commenced and during the current tenancy.
The landlord states that when the four comparable sample locations are assessed together, the methamphetamine reading increased from 3.9 μg/100cm 2 in September 2024, to 16.8 μg/100cm 2 in March 2026. This represents an increase of approximately 430%.
The landlord submits that this substantial increase constitutes compelling and objective evidence that methamphetamine use occurred within the premises during this tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Legal framework

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The provisions relating to termination of tenancies may be found in sections 50 to 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This includes termination of the tenancy under 59A, where the breach renders the premises uninhabitable, and under section 56 for non-payment of rent and other breaches.
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA provides that the tenant shall not “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.”
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, 2 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. 3
The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026, states, under Regulation 5, that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises (for the purposes of the definition of “contaminated”) is 15 μg/100cm. 2
In this case, the landlord has applied under section 56, with termination of the tenancy being sought for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 [2021] NZDC 3231 establish that the tenant has failed to do so. 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 of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
Section 56(1) of the RTA provides that 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. Has there been a breach of the tenant’s obligations?
In this case, the landlord’s evidence comprises the results of two methamphetamine tests, one conducted prior to the tenancy starting, and the second, during the tenancy. However, the baseline test of September 2024 had a composite sample result of 3.9 μg/100cm. 2 This result indicates the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning. The report states that the certificate of analysis confirms the sum accumulation of methamphetamine found in the four samples obtained was 3.9 μg/100cm. 2
The result of the testing undertaken in March 2026 indicated the level of methamphetamine detected ranged from 0.99 to 5.1 μg/100cm. 2 The levels are below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore, not at the level considered to present a health risk or damage to the property.
In this regard, the cases cited by the landlord involving other tenancies within the same complex may be distinguished. The pre-tenancy test in one of these cases showed that methamphetamine was not present at the premises before the tenancy started. In the other case, the pre-tenancy test showed very low readings, within the margin of error for methamphetamine. Furthermore, in each of these cases, the results of testing undertaken during the tenancy showed the presence of methamphetamine at levels much higher than in the current case. In one of the units, the results ranged from 0.68 to 14.2 μg/100cm 2 . In the other case, the range was from 5.4 to 55 μg/100cm 2 , being well above the 15μg/100cm² level applied by the Tribunal to establish that damage has been caused by methamphetamine use.
However, the testing completed in this case does show that in March 2026, there were elevated levels of methamphetamine throughout the property, with levels in the kitchen/living area door frame, bathroom door and bedroom door returning results above the pre-tenancy composite reading of 3.9μg/100cm. 2 It is acknowledged that the levels were below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore not at the level considered to present a health risk or damage to the property.
Therefore, on balance, I find it likely that the tenant has breached the obligation under section 40(2)(b) of the RTA, which provides that the tenant is not to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.

Was the breach capable of remedy?

A number of cases have held that a breach of a negative covenant in the tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy. For example: • Premises used for any unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the RTA, in circumstances where there was allegation of drug use. 4 • Interference with the reasonable peace and privacy of neighbours, in breach of section 40(2)(c) 5 .
However, Judge Walker in Te Rangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation 6 held that it is not always so that a breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. The Judge stated that it is necessary to consider the nature of the breach and the tenant’s part in it. In that case, the Court held that the breach was not one that was capable of remedy.
In this case, there is evidence to show the tenancy premises was used for an unlawful purpose, being methamphetamine use. Having considered the nature of the breach, and the overall circumstances, I find the breach to be one that was not capable of remedy. In these circumstances, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation (above) the Court considered the following factors to be relevant to 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.” • Whether the breach was advertent or deliberately committed. • Whether the breach involves immoral or illegal behaviour. • Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil their obligations in the future. • The conduct of the landlord. 4 Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-33, 19 March 2008 5 Fuavai v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-679, 24 August 2009; and Aluesi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-662, 24 August 2009. 6 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010. See also commentary in Westlaw at RT56.02 • The financial position of the tenant • Sometimes the position of third parties has had to be considered, for example, the position of a contracting purchaser of the interest. • The gravity of the breach • Whether a breach has occasioned lasting damage to a landlord. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Applying the factors set out above, and on the basis of the available evidence, I find that the breach in this case is serious, because it involves an illegal activity. Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The possession and use of methamphetamine is an offence under section 7.
The evidence concerning the tenant’s actions and behaviour is limited, and therefore, it is difficult to make findings concerning his conduct.
In the circumstances, I consider the landlord to have been reasonable in its approach. The landlord is a social housing provider. The premises is located within a group of units, and there were concerns about the use of drugs, gang activity and anti-social behaviour within the complex, prompting it to conduct testing at the premises.
It is acknowledged that the breach has not been to the extent that there has been lasting physical damage, and the levels of methamphetamine detected at the premises do not reach those considered under the Gluckman standard to result in damage. However, in view of the implications of these findings, it is likely to be disruptive for the landlord, and involve additional time and effort to arrange for professional cleaning before re-letting the property. There will also be a significant financial cost for remediation. Furthermore, as the landlord has noted in its submissions, while remediation is undertaken, the property cannot be made available to those on the housing register who are in urgent need of accommodation.
Taking all these factors into account, and accepting that the ending of the tenancy would cause serious disruption for the tenant, I do not consider termination of the tenancy to be disproportionate to the breach. This is because the breach is serious, and involves unlawful activity. Therefore, weighing up all these factors, I find that the balance falls in favour of the landlord, and it would be inequitable for the tenancy not to be terminated.
Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated, as recorded above.
Being mindful that the tenant will need to make arrangements to move elsewhere, I have allowed 7 days for the ending of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Order

The tenancy of Tony Minhinnick at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Monday 22 June 2026.
Tony Minhinnick must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the filing fee of $28.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) by using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose, namely the use or possession of methamphetamine. This is stated to be a breach not capable of remedy. Background
This tenancy began on 18 October 2024. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is a unit within a group of units managed by the landlord.
Before the start of this tenancy, the landlord arranged for a baseline methamphetamine test, which was conducted on 24 September 2024 by Meth Test Canterbury Limited. The report following testing recorded the presence of methamphetamine at the level of 3.9 μg/100cm 2 . The landlord states that during the three week period before the tenancy started, access to the property was limited to its staff, who were conducting viewings for prospective tenants.
The landlord became concerned about activity within the neighbourhood, with reports indicating the tenant’s unit was associated with drug related activity and other anti-social behaviour.
The landlord arranged for testing for methamphetamine by Meth Test Canterbury Limited, and the report was completed on 25 March 2026. This was a detailed assessment, in which six samples were taken and analysed at Hill Laboratories. The individual sample results were as follows: • Kitchen/living – a (door frame)5.1 μg/100cm 2 • Kitchen living – b (wall)2.2 μg/100cm 2 • Bathroom – a (door)4.9 μg/100cm 2 • Bathroom – b (ceiling)1.49 μg/100cm 2 • Bedroom – a (door)4.6 μg/100cm 2 • Bedroom – b (wall)0.99 μg/100cm 2 The hearing
The landlord relied on the results from the testing conducted at the premises. The landlord states that the four locations sampled during the September 2024 baseline assessment were sampled again during the March 2026 assessment. This provides a direct and objective comparison between the state of the property before the tenancy commenced and during the current tenancy.
The landlord states that when the four comparable sample locations are assessed together, the methamphetamine reading increased from 3.9 μg/100cm 2 in September 2024, to 16.8 μg/100cm 2 in March 2026. This represents an increase of approximately 430%.
The landlord submits that this substantial increase constitutes compelling and objective evidence that methamphetamine use occurred within the premises during this tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Legal framework

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The provisions relating to termination of tenancies may be found in sections 50 to 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This includes termination of the tenancy under 59A, where the breach renders the premises uninhabitable, and under section 56 for non-payment of rent and other breaches.
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA provides that the tenant shall not “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.”
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, 2 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. 3
The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026, states, under Regulation 5, that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises (for the purposes of the definition of “contaminated”) is 15 μg/100cm. 2
In this case, the landlord has applied under section 56, with termination of the tenancy being sought for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 [2021] NZDC 3231 establish that the tenant has failed to do so. 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 of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
Section 56(1) of the RTA provides that 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. Has there been a breach of the tenant’s obligations?
In this case, the landlord’s evidence comprises the results of two methamphetamine tests, one conducted prior to the tenancy starting, and the second, during the tenancy. However, the baseline test of September 2024 had a composite sample result of 3.9 μg/100cm. 2 This result indicates the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning. The report states that the certificate of analysis confirms the sum accumulation of methamphetamine found in the four samples obtained was 3.9 μg/100cm. 2
The result of the testing undertaken in March 2026 indicated the level of methamphetamine detected ranged from 0.99 to 5.1 μg/100cm. 2 The levels are below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore, not at the level considered to present a health risk or damage to the property.
In this regard, the cases cited by the landlord involving other tenancies within the same complex may be distinguished. The pre-tenancy test in one of these cases showed that methamphetamine was not present at the premises before the tenancy started. In the other case, the pre-tenancy test showed very low readings, within the margin of error for methamphetamine. Furthermore, in each of these cases, the results of testing undertaken during the tenancy showed the presence of methamphetamine at levels much higher than in the current case. In one of the units, the results ranged from 0.68 to 14.2 μg/100cm 2 . In the other case, the range was from 5.4 to 55 μg/100cm 2 , being well above the 15μg/100cm² level applied by the Tribunal to establish that damage has been caused by methamphetamine use.
However, the testing completed in this case does show that in March 2026, there were elevated levels of methamphetamine throughout the property, with levels in the kitchen/living area door frame, bathroom door and bedroom door returning results above the pre-tenancy composite reading of 3.9μg/100cm. 2 It is acknowledged that the levels were below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore not at the level considered to present a health risk or damage to the property.
Therefore, on balance, I find it likely that the tenant has breached the obligation under section 40(2)(b) of the RTA, which provides that the tenant is not to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.

Was the breach capable of remedy?

A number of cases have held that a breach of a negative covenant in the tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy. For example: • Premises used for any unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the RTA, in circumstances where there was allegation of drug use. 4 • Interference with the reasonable peace and privacy of neighbours, in breach of section 40(2)(c) 5 .
However, Judge Walker in Te Rangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation 6 held that it is not always so that a breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. The Judge stated that it is necessary to consider the nature of the breach and the tenant’s part in it. In that case, the Court held that the breach was not one that was capable of remedy.
In this case, there is evidence to show the tenancy premises was used for an unlawful purpose, being methamphetamine use. Having considered the nature of the breach, and the overall circumstances, I find the breach to be one that was not capable of remedy. In these circumstances, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation (above) the Court considered the following factors to be relevant to 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.” • Whether the breach was advertent or deliberately committed. • Whether the breach involves immoral or illegal behaviour. • Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil their obligations in the future. • The conduct of the landlord. 4 Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-33, 19 March 2008 5 Fuavai v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-679, 24 August 2009; and Aluesi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Manukau CIV-2009-092-662, 24 August 2009. 6 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010. See also commentary in Westlaw at RT56.02 • The financial position of the tenant • Sometimes the position of third parties has had to be considered, for example, the position of a contracting purchaser of the interest. • The gravity of the breach • Whether a breach has occasioned lasting damage to a landlord. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Applying the factors set out above, and on the basis of the available evidence, I find that the breach in this case is serious, because it involves an illegal activity. Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The possession and use of methamphetamine is an offence under section 7.
The evidence concerning the tenant’s actions and behaviour is limited, and therefore, it is difficult to make findings concerning his conduct.
In the circumstances, I consider the landlord to have been reasonable in its approach. The landlord is a social housing provider. The premises is located within a group of units, and there were concerns about the use of drugs, gang activity and anti-social behaviour within the complex, prompting it to conduct testing at the premises.
It is acknowledged that the breach has not been to the extent that there has been lasting physical damage, and the levels of methamphetamine detected at the premises do not reach those considered under the Gluckman standard to result in damage. However, in view of the implications of these findings, it is likely to be disruptive for the landlord, and involve additional time and effort to arrange for professional cleaning before re-letting the property. There will also be a significant financial cost for remediation. Furthermore, as the landlord has noted in its submissions, while remediation is undertaken, the property cannot be made available to those on the housing register who are in urgent need of accommodation.
Taking all these factors into account, and accepting that the ending of the tenancy would cause serious disruption for the tenant, I do not consider termination of the tenancy to be disproportionate to the breach. This is because the breach is serious, and involves unlawful activity. Therefore, weighing up all these factors, I find that the balance falls in favour of the landlord, and it would be inequitable for the tenancy not to be terminated.
Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated, as recorded above.
Being mindful that the tenant will need to make arrangements to move elsewhere, I have allowed 7 days for the ending of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477312 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477312 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Was the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

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?

Was the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions