What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5515773 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s, neighbouring complainant’s,

How much money was awarded in case 5515773?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5515773?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5515773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5515773 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s, neighbouring complainant’s,

How much money was awarded in case 5515773?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5515773?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5515773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5515773 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s, neighbouring complainant’s, and supporting witness’ name 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

This matter relates to a tenancy that commenced on 16 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy alleging serious anti-social behaviour directed towards a neighbouring tenant residing within the same complex. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), alleging threats of serious physical violence and assault against a neighbouring occupier. The landlord also relies on the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Act not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
The hearing was conducted by video conference on 11 June 2026. The landlord attended. The tenant did not attend.
The Tribunal attempted to contact the tenant using the contact details provided in the application but was unsuccessful. I am satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice has been completed and proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

What is the relevant legal framework?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Act provides that, subject to subsection (2), the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises or an occupier of a building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord bears the burden of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities. Although the civil standard of proof applies, allegations of assault and threats of serious violence are inherently serious. Evidence must therefore be sufficiently cogent and reliable to satisfy the Tribunal that the conduct occurred.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC TT233/02), Judge Mather observed that a party bringing proceedings must provide the evidence necessary to establish the claim.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act requires a tenant not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other tenant or person residing in the neighbourhood.
Under section 55(2), the Tribunal retains a discretion not to terminate in limited circumstances. In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004- 409-717, 2 July 2004, the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal may consider whether it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind referred to in section 55.

Has the landlord proved the alleged threats and assault?

I am satisfied that the landlord has proved the claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord relies primarily upon the detailed written statement of the neighbouring tenant. The statement provides a chronological account of events occurring on 9 May 2026 between approximately 6.00 pm and 6.45 pm.
The neighbouring tenant describes the tenant entering his flat without permission and refusing repeated requests to leave. He then describes a series of escalating threats including statements that the tenant would “stick a knife” into him, that she could kill him, that she knew people who could kill him, and that she would “slice” his throat.
The witness further describes the tenant picking up a sharp shard from a broken pottery dish while making threats to kill him. He states he became fearful for his personal safety and retreated into his flat, after which the tenant allegedly attempted to kick his door.
The statement also alleges physical contact. The neighbouring tenant states the tenant repeatedly kicked the backs of his legs while he was attempting to clean up the broken pottery. Such conduct, if accepted, constitutes an assault for the purposes of section 55(1)(c).
Importantly, the statement was not limited to broad assertions or conclusions. It contained a detailed description of the sequence of events, the words allegedly spoken, the conduct observed, the response of the witness, and the subsequent involvement of Police.
The witness account is supported by surrounding evidence.
The neighbouring tenant provided evidence that Police attended following a call for assistance. A call log was produced confirming contact with emergency services. While Police attendance does not itself prove the allegations, it is consistent with a person genuinely concerned for their safety.
The evidence also establishes that Police subsequently issued a trespass notice in relation to the neighbouring tenant’s flat. Again, while the issuing of a trespass notice is not determinative of the allegations, it is consistent with the seriousness of the events described.
The landlord also produced a supporting statement from another neighbouring occupier. That witness confirmed observing furniture and other belongings moved across the common area. Although that evidence does not directly establish the threats or assault, it provides some corroboration of the broader disturbance described in the primary witness statement.
The Tribunal notes that the tenant did not attend the hearing to challenge the evidence, provide an alternative explanation, or deny the allegations. The absence of the tenant does not relieve the landlord of its burden of proof. However, where detailed evidence is provided and remains unchallenged, the Tribunal is entitled to place weight upon it.
Having considered the evidence as a whole, I find it more likely than not that the tenant threatened serious physical violence towards the neighbouring tenant, including threats involving a knife and threats to kill him.
I further find it more likely than not that the tenant intentionally kicked the neighbouring tenant in the legs during the incident, amounting to an assault. Has there been a breach of section 40(2)(c)?
Yes.
The conduct described in the evidence significantly exceeded the type of ordinary neighbour dispute occasionally encountered in multi-unit housing.
Threats of death, threats involving weapons, unauthorised entry into another occupier’s home, alleged attempts to damage property, intimidation, and physical aggression fundamentally undermine the peace, comfort, and security of neighbouring residents.
The evidence establishes a serious interference with the neighbouring tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy contrary to section 40(2)(c) of the Act.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I am satisfied that the requirements of section 55(1)(c) have been established.
The evidence proves both threats to assault and an actual assault upon a neighbouring occupier residing within the same building complex.
The remaining question is whether I should exercise the discretion under section 55(2) not to terminate the tenancy.
I decline to do so.
The conduct established is serious. The threats were not isolated comments made in passing. They involved repeated threats to kill the neighbouring tenant and threats involving a knife and a sharp shard of broken pottery. The conduct caused the neighbouring tenant genuine fear for his personal safety.
There is no evidence before me demonstrating that the risk of recurrence is low. The tenant has not attended the hearing, has provided no explanation, no evidence of insight into the conduct, no evidence of rehabilitation, and no proposal addressing the concerns raised by neighbouring residents.
The landlord is responsible for providing housing within a multi-unit residential environment. Other tenants are entitled to live free from threats, intimidation, and violence. The landlord has legitimate concerns regarding the safety and quiet enjoyment of the remaining occupants.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied it is unlikely that further conduct of this nature could occur. The discretion in section 55(2) should not be exercised.
Termination is therefore warranted.

Should suppression be granted?

Section 95A of the Act permits suppression where publication of names or identifying particulars would be likely to cause hardship exceeding the ordinary consequences of proceedings or where suppression is otherwise justified.
As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
This case involves allegations of threats to kill, assault, mental health references, Police involvement, and evidence from neighbouring tenants living within the same residential complex.
Publication of the identities of the neighbouring complainant, and supporting witness could expose those individuals to further conflict, retaliation, unwanted attention, or ongoing distress. The neighbouring occupiers participated in these proceedings as witnesses concerning serious allegations involving their personal safety. Their identities are not necessary for public understanding of the Tribunal’s decision. I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s, neighbouring complainant’s, and supporting witness’ name 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

This matter relates to a tenancy that commenced on 16 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy alleging serious anti-social behaviour directed towards a neighbouring tenant residing within the same complex. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), alleging threats of serious physical violence and assault against a neighbouring occupier. The landlord also relies on the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Act not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
The hearing was conducted by video conference on 11 June 2026. The landlord attended. The tenant did not attend.
The Tribunal attempted to contact the tenant using the contact details provided in the application but was unsuccessful. I am satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice has been completed and proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

What is the relevant legal framework?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Act provides that, subject to subsection (2), the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises or an occupier of a building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord bears the burden of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities. Although the civil standard of proof applies, allegations of assault and threats of serious violence are inherently serious. Evidence must therefore be sufficiently cogent and reliable to satisfy the Tribunal that the conduct occurred.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC TT233/02), Judge Mather observed that a party bringing proceedings must provide the evidence necessary to establish the claim.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act requires a tenant not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other tenant or person residing in the neighbourhood.
Under section 55(2), the Tribunal retains a discretion not to terminate in limited circumstances. In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004- 409-717, 2 July 2004, the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal may consider whether it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind referred to in section 55.

Has the landlord proved the alleged threats and assault?

I am satisfied that the landlord has proved the claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord relies primarily upon the detailed written statement of the neighbouring tenant. The statement provides a chronological account of events occurring on 9 May 2026 between approximately 6.00 pm and 6.45 pm.
The neighbouring tenant describes the tenant entering his flat without permission and refusing repeated requests to leave. He then describes a series of escalating threats including statements that the tenant would “stick a knife” into him, that she could kill him, that she knew people who could kill him, and that she would “slice” his throat.
The witness further describes the tenant picking up a sharp shard from a broken pottery dish while making threats to kill him. He states he became fearful for his personal safety and retreated into his flat, after which the tenant allegedly attempted to kick his door.
The statement also alleges physical contact. The neighbouring tenant states the tenant repeatedly kicked the backs of his legs while he was attempting to clean up the broken pottery. Such conduct, if accepted, constitutes an assault for the purposes of section 55(1)(c).
Importantly, the statement was not limited to broad assertions or conclusions. It contained a detailed description of the sequence of events, the words allegedly spoken, the conduct observed, the response of the witness, and the subsequent involvement of Police.
The witness account is supported by surrounding evidence.
The neighbouring tenant provided evidence that Police attended following a call for assistance. A call log was produced confirming contact with emergency services. While Police attendance does not itself prove the allegations, it is consistent with a person genuinely concerned for their safety.
The evidence also establishes that Police subsequently issued a trespass notice in relation to the neighbouring tenant’s flat. Again, while the issuing of a trespass notice is not determinative of the allegations, it is consistent with the seriousness of the events described.
The landlord also produced a supporting statement from another neighbouring occupier. That witness confirmed observing furniture and other belongings moved across the common area. Although that evidence does not directly establish the threats or assault, it provides some corroboration of the broader disturbance described in the primary witness statement.
The Tribunal notes that the tenant did not attend the hearing to challenge the evidence, provide an alternative explanation, or deny the allegations. The absence of the tenant does not relieve the landlord of its burden of proof. However, where detailed evidence is provided and remains unchallenged, the Tribunal is entitled to place weight upon it.
Having considered the evidence as a whole, I find it more likely than not that the tenant threatened serious physical violence towards the neighbouring tenant, including threats involving a knife and threats to kill him.
I further find it more likely than not that the tenant intentionally kicked the neighbouring tenant in the legs during the incident, amounting to an assault. Has there been a breach of section 40(2)(c)?
Yes.
The conduct described in the evidence significantly exceeded the type of ordinary neighbour dispute occasionally encountered in multi-unit housing.
Threats of death, threats involving weapons, unauthorised entry into another occupier’s home, alleged attempts to damage property, intimidation, and physical aggression fundamentally undermine the peace, comfort, and security of neighbouring residents.
The evidence establishes a serious interference with the neighbouring tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy contrary to section 40(2)(c) of the Act.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I am satisfied that the requirements of section 55(1)(c) have been established.
The evidence proves both threats to assault and an actual assault upon a neighbouring occupier residing within the same building complex.
The remaining question is whether I should exercise the discretion under section 55(2) not to terminate the tenancy.
I decline to do so.
The conduct established is serious. The threats were not isolated comments made in passing. They involved repeated threats to kill the neighbouring tenant and threats involving a knife and a sharp shard of broken pottery. The conduct caused the neighbouring tenant genuine fear for his personal safety.
There is no evidence before me demonstrating that the risk of recurrence is low. The tenant has not attended the hearing, has provided no explanation, no evidence of insight into the conduct, no evidence of rehabilitation, and no proposal addressing the concerns raised by neighbouring residents.
The landlord is responsible for providing housing within a multi-unit residential environment. Other tenants are entitled to live free from threats, intimidation, and violence. The landlord has legitimate concerns regarding the safety and quiet enjoyment of the remaining occupants.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied it is unlikely that further conduct of this nature could occur. The discretion in section 55(2) should not be exercised.
Termination is therefore warranted.

Should suppression be granted?

Section 95A of the Act permits suppression where publication of names or identifying particulars would be likely to cause hardship exceeding the ordinary consequences of proceedings or where suppression is otherwise justified.
As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
This case involves allegations of threats to kill, assault, mental health references, Police involvement, and evidence from neighbouring tenants living within the same residential complex.
Publication of the identities of the neighbouring complainant, and supporting witness could expose those individuals to further conflict, retaliation, unwanted attention, or ongoing distress. The neighbouring occupiers participated in these proceedings as witnesses concerning serious allegations involving their personal safety. Their identities are not necessary for public understanding of the Tribunal’s decision. I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5515773 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5515773 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the relevant legal framework?

Has the landlord proved the alleged threats and assault?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should suppression be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What is the relevant legal framework?

Has the landlord proved the alleged threats and assault?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should suppression be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions