What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5543956 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote,

How much money was awarded in case 5543956?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,565.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5543956?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5543956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14084878-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5543956 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote,

How much money was awarded in case 5543956?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,565.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5543956?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5543956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14084878-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5543956 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5543956 — net $314.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,565.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$314.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$314.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 is terminated, and possession is granted to Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited, at 11.59am on Wednesday 26 August 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (BN-00125796) to Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited $314.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant made an application to the Tribunal to be represented by his mother. That application was approved, and the tenant’s mother attended the hearing on the tenant’s behalf and in his absence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $2,565.00. Breaches Section 55 RTA
In the alternative, the landlord says that the tenant has threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises (s.55(1)(b) RTA) and threatened to assault staff members of the landlord (s.55(1)(c)(iii) RTA).
The evidence of the first breach was from the Mediator of the mediation between the parties. That mediation took place on 5 August 2026. The Mediator said that the tenant had hung up during the course of the mediation. The tenant then called back and said, “he was going home to set the house on fire so the tenancy cannot be ended, and so he will have no possessions for debt collection.” The Mediator considered the threat to be a real and an immediate threat to set the house on fire. The Mediator called emergency services.
I consider that this was a threat to cause substantial damage to the premises,
The threat to the landlord’s staff was contained in a txt from the tenant to one of the property managers. The txt states “...Better hope I don’t see you guys driving ya shit box cars around karma is a bitch.”
I consider that to be a threat to assault.
“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.” Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises and to assault staff members of the landlord. The tenant did not dispute that the events occurred.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of ss.55(1)(b) and (1)(c)(iii) 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 threats to be serious. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant. I accept the evidence of the tenant that her son has ongoing health issues . I am not however satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
The tenancy is terminated.
As Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been whole or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant's application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5543956 — net $314.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,565.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$314.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$314.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 is terminated, and possession is granted to Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited, at 11.59am on Wednesday 26 August 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (BN-00125796) to Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited $314.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant made an application to the Tribunal to be represented by his mother. That application was approved, and the tenant’s mother attended the hearing on the tenant’s behalf and in his absence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $2,565.00. Breaches Section 55 RTA
In the alternative, the landlord says that the tenant has threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises (s.55(1)(b) RTA) and threatened to assault staff members of the landlord (s.55(1)(c)(iii) RTA).
The evidence of the first breach was from the Mediator of the mediation between the parties. That mediation took place on 5 August 2026. The Mediator said that the tenant had hung up during the course of the mediation. The tenant then called back and said, “he was going home to set the house on fire so the tenancy cannot be ended, and so he will have no possessions for debt collection.” The Mediator considered the threat to be a real and an immediate threat to set the house on fire. The Mediator called emergency services.
I consider that this was a threat to cause substantial damage to the premises,
The threat to the landlord’s staff was contained in a txt from the tenant to one of the property managers. The txt states “...Better hope I don’t see you guys driving ya shit box cars around karma is a bitch.”
I consider that to be a threat to assault.
“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.” Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises and to assault staff members of the landlord. The tenant did not dispute that the events occurred.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of ss.55(1)(b) and (1)(c)(iii) 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 threats to be serious. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant. I accept the evidence of the tenant that her son has ongoing health issues . I am not however satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
The tenancy is terminated.
As Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Gray Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been whole or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant's application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5543956 — Rent arrears at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5543956 — Rent arrears at 47 Sawyers Arms Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.