What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500651 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 5500651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500651 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 5500651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5500651 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy is a 1-bedroom stand-alone unit within a complex comprising of other tenanted properties. The tenancy commenced on 1 January 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord said that at approximately 8.12 am on 25 April 2026 she received a telephone call from one of the other tenants at the premises advising of a serious incident at the property. The landlord said that during the phone call she could hear screaming and sirens in the background.
The tenant calling advised the landlord that the tenant from room 5 had stabbed the tenant from room 1.
When the landlord arrived at the premises she spoke to the police who confirmed that the tenant from room 5 had been arrested as a result of the assault and that the tenant from room 1 was undergoing surgery for serious wounds. The tenant from room 1 was subsequently transferred to the intensive care unit and has since been released from hospital Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – ... (c) the tenant has caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
“Assault” is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under s. 55(2) RTA, namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted the tenant from room 1. Charges have been laid by the Police.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the assault that took place as particularly serious.
I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. Interim Court suppression orders remain in place with regards to the tenant. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details as well as the address all the premises is ordered.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenancy is a 1-bedroom stand-alone unit within a complex comprising of other tenanted properties. The tenancy commenced on 1 January 2026.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlord’s evidence

The landlord said that at approximately 8.12 am on 25 April 2026 she received a telephone call from one of the other tenants at the premises advising of a serious incident at the property. The landlord said that during the phone call she could hear screaming and sirens in the background.

The tenant calling advised the landlord that the tenant from room 5 had stabbed the tenant from room 1.

When the landlord arrived at the premises she spoke to the police who confirmed that the tenant from room 5 had been arrested as a result of the assault and that the tenant from room 1 was undergoing surgery for serious wounds. The tenant from room 1 was subsequently transferred to the intensive care unit and has since been released from hospital Termination The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – ... (c) the tenant has caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].

“Assault” is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.

In Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under s. 55(2) RTA, namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis

Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted the tenant from room 1. Charges have been laid by the Police.

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA are established.

The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.

I regard the assault that took place as particularly serious.

I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.

The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. Interim Court suppression orders remain in place with regards to the tenant. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details as well as the address all the premises is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500651 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500651 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions