Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5560676 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024
Decided 8 Sept 2026 · Published 8 Sept 2026 · Application 5560676
- Filing Fee
- Harassment
- 14-day notice
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Young
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $29.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $29.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing fee reimbursement | $29.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $29.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $29.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5560676 — net $29.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $29.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
Order
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 30 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 15 September 2026.
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $29.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing on 8 September 2026.
- The tenancy commenced on 2 October 2023.
- The tenanted premises are in a 25-unit complex. The tenant lives at unit 30. Unit 30 adjoins unit 28. There is a party wall dividing the two units. There is a small back yard at the rear of each unit divided by a fence.
- The landlord seeks orders terminating the tenancy for breach of s.55(1)(c)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and in the alternative, an order terminating the tenancy under s.56 RTA for a breach of s.40(2)(c) RTA. Assault The law
- Section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads in part: (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 a s s a u l t e d ... . any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part....
- “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.
- Has the landlord proven that there was an assault?
- The landlord provided a signed statement from the tenant of unit 28, the unit adjoining the tenant’s premises (“Ms A”). Ms A did not appear in person at the hearing. She was too apprehensive and has now left her tenancy to move elsewhere.
- Ms A said in her statement that on Thursday 23 July 2026 at approximately 9.20 am, she was at her unit.
- The tenant knocked on her door. Ms A answered the door. The tenant asked for the return of her son’s ball. A dispute relating to the tenant and Ms A’s respective young children took place.
- Ms A says that she returned the ball to the tenant. The tenant was still in the doorway. The tenant said, “Don’t fucking lie to me” and threw the ball at Ms A’s face. The tenant entered the unit and grabbed Ms A by her upper arm attempting to pull her out of the unit. This caused Ms A’s singlet top and bra to be torn off her. A significant degree of force would be required for this to occur.
- Ms A managed to force the tenant out of her unit and close the door.
- A photo of the injuries suffered by Ms A was provided. The photo shows what appear to be burn marks to her shoulder where her clothing was pulled against the skin. One mark shows freshly broken skin. Photos of the damaged clothing were also provided.
- Two witnesses gave evidence relating to this assault. They confirm Ms A’s version of events and that the tenant was the aggressor.
- The tenant said that when she went to Ms A’s unit, she was frustrated. She said that Ms A’s young son had been stealing her child’s sports equipment. She said that she had raised similar incidents with police and the landlord without anything being done.
- The tenant admitted having moved inside Ms A’s unit and grabbing her clothing, which resulted in them being damaged. She denied having caused any physical injury and said that the scratches on the tenant depicted in the photos were already present prior to the incident.
- Where the evidence of the tenant and Ms A conflict, I prefer the evidence of Ms A. The photo of the injury shows injuries that are “fresh.” I simply do not accept the unsupported evidence of the tenant, that Ms A had coincidently just been involved in another assault just prior to this incident. Even if the Tribunal were to accept the evidence of the tenant, it is clear that an assault has occurred.
- Where an assault has occurred, s.55(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate the tenancy.
- The only remaining issue is whether the Tribunal should use the discretion residing in s.55(2) RTA to refuse to terminate the tenancy. That section provides: (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where 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) RTA.”
- 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 s. 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.
- The circumstances of the breach are such that it cannot be remedied and the landlord cannot be compensated. That leaves one remaining issue. Is it unlikely that the tenant will not commit a further breach of a similar nature?
- In considering the question, two issues are significant. The tenant during the hearing appeared to both minimise the violence involved and to justify it by saying that she was frustrated because despite having raised her concerns with both the police and the landlord, nothing had been done. That will no doubt have been frustrating, but it does not justify her assaulting another person. The tenant said that she was aware of this. Her being aware, does not seem to have prevented her carrying out the assault on Ms A.
- Secondly, Ms B was one of the other witnesses to the assault. Ms B is also a tenant in the complex. Ms B gave evidence of a previous incident in April 2026 where she too had been assaulted by the tenant. Ms B provided photos of the injuries she suffered at the time. Those injuries included bruising to the upper arm and face.
- The tenant attempted to justify that assault as being “pushing” and that she didn’t touch Ms B’s face. The evidence supports the version of Ms B and I prefer that evidence.
- Given the propensity of the tenant to use violence where she feels frustrated by others or where she perceives there to be any injustice, I am not satisfied that the tenant will not use violence in the future. The tenancy is terminated.
- As the tenancy has been terminated under s.55 RTA, I am not required to consider the alternative application under s.56 RTA.
- As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s2(1), s55(1), s78A(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
- Dispute theme: harassment
- Dispute theme: filing fee
Property management
- OTAUTAHI COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5560676 about?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 30 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch
How much money was awarded in case 5560676?
Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5560676?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5560676?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14177937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.