How much money was awarded in case 5561016?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5561016?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5561016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14124478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5561016?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5561016?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5561016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14124478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 34, 16 Dundee Place, Spreydon, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5561016 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5561016 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 34, 16 Dundee Place, Spreydon,

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5561016 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 34, 16 Dundee Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024, Maurice Carter Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 am on Friday 4 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 27 August 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 25 November 2023.

The tenanted premises are a semi-detached unit in a large complex of approximately 60 units.

The issues relate to a dispute between the tenant and his neighbour in the adjoining unit (who for the purposes of this order will be referred to as “Mr B”).

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the following grounds ; • Assaulting and threatening to assault another tenant (s.55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). • Breaching the RTA in a manner incapable of remedy. The landlord alleges that the tenant has breached his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.(s.56 and s.40(2)(c) RTA). Threat The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) 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 constitute 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 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. Evidence

The evidence presented by the landlord was subject to a limited challenge by the tenant.

The evidence of Mr B was that on 24 June 2026 at approximately 6pm, he was in his unit. The tenant knocked on the door. Mr B answered the door. Mr B said in evidence “Without any warning or indication, he grabbed me with both of his hands wrapped around me and pushed me onto the couch. When I landed on the couch, Sonny said to me “I’m going to kill you”. That comment about him killing me, left me very worried and upset. I told Sonny to get out of my house and advised him that I was going to call the police. Sonny took a couple of minutes to leave but was basically silent after making the original comment about killing me. As soon as Sonny left my unit, I went to try and find a neighbour with a phone, so I could call the police.” (Sonny is the name that the tenant was known by in the complex).

The police attended the incident. The police issued a trespass notice to the tenant in relation to Mr B’s unit.

Mr B referred to another incident involving the tenant at the start of 2026. During that incident the tenant’s sisters had had to intervene to hold the tenant back to stop the tenant from assaulting Mr B.

Mr B said that he was worried that the tenant would come back and assault him again. The threat to kill has left him very shaken.

The tenant accepted that he had entered Mr B’s unit on 24 June 2026 and that he had pushed Mr B. He said that the threat was worded slightly differently. The tenant indicated that he had said “If you go into my flat again, I will kill you.” He said by way of background that he thought that Mr B had been inside his unit.

The tenant said that he would not apologise to Mr B. He said that he had been in a poor state at the time as a result of upcoming surgery.

The landlord said that a staff member had a telephone conversation during which the tenant accepted that he had “had it out with Mr B and pushed him against the wall. He said that “if I catch him again, I will really hurt him.” This statement was repeated by the tenant. The tenant did not recall the conversation. Analysis

Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant both assaulted and threatened Mr B. The threat is aggravated by the fact that the threat was to kill.

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(v) 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 threat and assault that took place as serious. Ms B said that he is worried that the tenant will return and assault him again. The threat to kill had left him very shaken. He is in a situation where he has to live in very close proximity to the tenant.

The incident on 24 June 2026 is not the only incident involving threats and violence involving the tenant. I am not satisfied that the tenant is unlikely to commit any further breach of this kind in the future. The evidence provided indicates a pattern of behaviour involving violence and threats by the tenant. The threat is aggravated by the fact that it is a threat to kill and is the most serious of its type. The tenant seems to have little insight into the effect of this type of behaviour.

For those reasons, the tenancy is terminated.

As the tenancy is terminated, I am not required to consider the landlord’s alternative application under s.56 RTA.

As the landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing, the tenant is ordered to pay the landlord the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5561016 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

[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 27 August 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 25 November 2023.

The tenanted premises are a semi-detached unit in a large complex of approximately 60 units.

The issues relate to a dispute between the tenant and his neighbour in the adjoining unit (who for the purposes of this order will be referred to as “Mr B”).

The evidence presented by the landlord was subject to a limited challenge by the tenant.

The police attended the incident. The police issued a trespass notice to the tenant in relation to Mr B’s unit.

Mr B said that he was worried that the tenant would come back and assault him again. The threat to kill has left him very shaken.

The tenant said that he would not apologise to Mr B. He said that he had been in a poor state at the time as a result of upcoming surgery.

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

For those reasons, the tenancy is terminated.

As the tenancy is terminated, I am not required to consider the landlord’s alternative application under s.56 RTA.

As the landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing, the tenant is ordered to pay the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5561016 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 34, 16 Dundee Place, Spreydon, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5561016 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 34, 16 Dundee Place, Spreydon, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.