What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508377 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 5508377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13704756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508377 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 5508377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13704756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5508377 — 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 applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to terminate the tenancy .
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for a breach of his quiet enjoyment off the premises.
The tenancy commenced on 28 March 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove his claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Landlord’s evidence
The tenant is the sole tenant of a small, standalone property.
The background to the dispute is relatively brief and there is no significant difference between the version of events given by each party.
On 16 May 2026, the tenant returned to the premises. He found that whilst the lighting and water were still working, none of the other electrical appliances were operational.
The tenant sent a txt to the landlord advising that there was an issue with the power.
The landlord explained to the Tribunal that he lived close to the tenant’s premises. Upon receiving the txt from the tenant, the landlord drove to the premises and knocked on the door.
The landlord said that he was invited in by the tenant. On this issue there was a slight, but not significant variation in the evidence of the parties. The tenant said that he gestured towards the landlord with the intention of inviting him into the premises, but did not use any words to invite the landlord in. Whichever may be the correct version of events, I find that there was a consent by the tenant to the landlord’s entry. As a result of the tenant consenting to the entry, I dismiss the tenant’s application that there was a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises. I also record that this was a one-off entry rather than there being a pattern of behaviour by the landlord.
The tenant said that he was upset that the landlord had arrived at the premises without having given him prior notice and that there had been a general lack of communication.
The landlord attempted to fix the problem with the power and was successful in doing so. The tenant remained upset at the lack of communication. Both parties agreed that the tenant said to the landlord “You are South African, I’m Irish, we can sort this out with our fists.” The landlord said that he thought that this meant that the tenant wanted to fight.
Sensibly, the landlord left the premises. The landlord reported the incident to the police but was unsure if any charges had been placed before the Courts.
The landlord said that there had been no incidents with the tenant prior to 16 May 2026, nor any since. The landlord said that he no longer felt safe attending the premises. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(i) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for a threatened 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) the landlord...; (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 R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”
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 threatened to assault the landlord.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(i) 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.
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 consider the following to be relevant. a. There is no evidence of any threatening behaviour by the tenant prior to or since the incident complained of. b. The threat was made in circumstances where the tenant could have carried out the threat but did not do so. c. The threat itself was not as serious as some threats which come before the Tribunal. Having said that there was no justification for the threat being made. d. The tenant’s evidence indicates that he has some insight into his behaviour.
Having taken all of those factors into account, I consider this to be an appropriate case to invoke my discretion to not terminate the tenancy. I do not consider that it is likely that there will be a repeat of the behaviour by the tenant in the future. The tenant should be aware that if there were a repeat of behaviour of this type, it is likely that the landlord would file a further application to terminate the tenancy. If that were to occur, the landlord should provide the adjudicator hearing the matter with a copy of this order.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. But for the exercise of my discretion in favour of the tenant, the landlord would have been successful. In those circumstances, I consider suppression of the landlord’s name and details to be appropriate and I make that order.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for a breach of his quiet enjoyment off the premises.

The tenancy commenced on 28 March 2026.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove his claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Landlord’s evidence

The tenant is the sole tenant of a small, standalone property.

The background to the dispute is relatively brief and there is no significant difference between the version of events given by each party.

On 16 May 2026, the tenant returned to the premises. He found that whilst the lighting and water were still working, none of the other electrical appliances were operational.

The tenant sent a txt to the landlord advising that there was an issue with the power.

The landlord explained to the Tribunal that he lived close to the tenant’s premises. Upon receiving the txt from the tenant, the landlord drove to the premises and knocked on the door.

The landlord said that he was invited in by the tenant. On this issue there was a slight, but not significant variation in the evidence of the parties. The tenant said that he gestured towards the landlord with the intention of inviting him into the premises, but did not use any words to invite the landlord in. Whichever may be the correct version of events, I find that there was a consent by the tenant to the landlord’s entry. As a result of the tenant consenting to the entry, I dismiss the tenant’s application that there was a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises. I also record that this was a one-off entry rather than there being a pattern of behaviour by the landlord.

The tenant said that he was upset that the landlord had arrived at the premises without having given him prior notice and that there had been a general lack of communication.

The landlord attempted to fix the problem with the power and was successful in doing so. The tenant remained upset at the lack of communication. Both parties agreed that the tenant said to the landlord “You are South African, I’m Irish, we can sort this out with our fists.” The landlord said that he thought that this meant that the tenant wanted to fight.

Sensibly, the landlord left the premises. The landlord reported the incident to the police but was unsure if any charges had been placed before the Courts.

The landlord said that there had been no incidents with the tenant prior to 16 May 2026, nor any since. The landlord said that he no longer felt safe attending the premises. Termination The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(i) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for a threatened 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) the landlord...; (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 R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”

See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”

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 threatened to assault the landlord.

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(i) 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.

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 consider the following to be relevant. a. There is no evidence of any threatening behaviour by the tenant prior to or since the incident complained of. b. The threat was made in circumstances where the tenant could have carried out the threat but did not do so. c. The threat itself was not as serious as some threats which come before the Tribunal. Having said that there was no justification for the threat being made. d. The tenant’s evidence indicates that he has some insight into his behaviour.

Having taken all of those factors into account, I consider this to be an appropriate case to invoke my discretion to not terminate the tenancy. I do not consider that it is likely that there will be a repeat of the behaviour by the tenant in the future. The tenant should be aware that if there were a repeat of behaviour of this type, it is likely that the landlord would file a further application to terminate the tenancy. If that were to occur, the landlord should provide the adjudicator hearing the matter with a copy of this order.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. But for the exercise of my discretion in favour of the tenant, the landlord would have been successful. In those circumstances, I consider suppression of the landlord’s name and details to be appropriate and I make that order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508377 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508377 — 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