Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5570726 — 14-day notice at Room 1, 97 Hansons Lane, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

Decided 25 Sept 2026 · Published 25 Sept 2026 · Application 5570726

14-day notice
Exemplary damages
Harassment
Boarding House

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Christchurch

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

S Young

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application by the tenant and the application by the landlord are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 21 September 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 14 August 2026 and is current.
The tenanted premise is one bedroom in a three-bedroom house. There is also a granny flat outside. The rooms are let on a room-by-room basis. Each tenant has the exclusive occupation of their room with shared use of the common facilities, kitchen etc. For the purposes of this hearing, it is important to remember that there are four separate tenancies at this house. The number of tenants means that it cannot by definition be considered as a boarding house, nor are the residents flat mates. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, this means the parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so, then their application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Claims
The tenant’s claims for consideration by the Tribunal are; • Breach of quiet enjoyment ( s.38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) • Failure by the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (s.45(1)(e) RTA. • Compensation for costs incurred as a result of the breaches by the landlord. • Exemplary damages • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord’s claims for consideration by the Tribunal are; • Termination of the tenancy for a breach of the RTA incapable of remedy (s.56 and s.55(1)(c)(iv) ( RTA) • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Evidence
The tenant gave evidence at the hearing. The evidence of the three other tenants at the premises Yuvaraj Ravi (“Yuvaraj”), Teddy Leautuli (“Teddy) and Philip Soli (“Philip”) was provided by way of a statement. The Tribunal Is not bound by the usual rules of evidence. It may receive any relevant evidence in any form that is acceptable to the adjudicator. The key issue is the question of weight to be attached to that evidence. Generally, the evidence of a witness who is present at the hearing and available to be cross examined will carry greater weight than the evidence of a witness who gives evidence by way of written statement and is not available for cross examination.
The first incident rose on 24 August 2026 at approximately 11am. The tenant and Philip disagreed on the use of a separate bedroom within the premises. Philip informed the tenant that he was not permitted to use this area. The tenant did not accept this instruction. The disagreement became hostile. Philip called the tenant an idiot and said to the tenant; “are we going to have a problem”? The tenant said that he would raise the matter with the landlord. The tenant made contact with the landlord to discuss the dispute.
The dispute arose again later in the day at approximately 3.30pm. The tenant was preparing to leave the premises. He said that he was physically prevented from leaving the house by Teddy. The tenant said that he was pushed by Teddy and that at that point he pushed Teddy away so as to create some distance and remove him from the tenant's personal space. The tenant disengaged, returned to his bedroom and locked the door as he felt unsafe. The tenant contacted the police and informed them of the incident.
Philip entered the house and became involved in a verbal dispute with the tenant at approximately 3.47 pm. The tenant locked himself in his room as he did not feel safe. The tenant informed the landlord of his concerns. The tenant provided the landlord with a formal incident report and a 14 day notice to remedy the issue with the other tenants. In particular, he raised the concerns regarding physical aggression and his ability to safely enter, leave and use the property.
At approximately 11 am on 25 August 2026, the tenant was in the kitchen. As the tenant went to leave the kitchen he was obstructed by Philip.
At approximately 7 pm the tenant went to the kitchen. Philip was present and said that the tenant couldn’t use the kitchen whilst he was using it. The tenant said that Philip dragged the tenant down the hallway back towards his bedroom.
The tenant returned to the kitchen. During the confrontation that ensued the tenant was struck on the back of his head by Teddy. The Police were called.
On 3 September 2026, a further incident occurred. The tenant said; “I entered the shared kitchen for the ordinary purpose of making coffee. A confrontation developed between Philip and me. I went to the kitchen to make myself a coffee before heading to campus for a lecture. Philip blocked me at the kitchen doorway, and I asked if I could make my coffee. Philip asked if I was going to respect him. I again asked if I could make my coffee. We repeated our statements a few times before I decided that the interaction was not going anywhere and attempted to walk past him to make my coffee. Philip put his hands on me and tried to restrain me. I pushed back to create space. Philip then threw me to the floor and pinned me to the ground twice. During the incident, my shirt was torn, my glasses were damaged and my headphones were knocked off my head. Philip wouldn’t get off me until I was calm, but I said I couldn’t because he was hurting me. Eventually Philip got off me only to tackle me and pin me down again as I was trying to walk back to my room. I don’t know why he tackled me and pinned me the second time. My account is that the confrontation became physical and Philip subjected me to substantial physical force. He threw or moved me around the hallway and repeatedly pinned or restrained me. I then locked myself in my room and called the police. I changed the white shirt that Philip tore as it was unwearable now and changed into a green shirt.”
Statements were provided by the other three tenants. I have tried to limit the review of their evidence to the application of force or any threat to do so.
Teddy said that 25 August 2026 he put his hand on the tenant’s chest to stop him leaving. He said that in a later incident Philip had put the tenant into a bear hug and marched him back to his room. Later the tenant had pushed Uvaraj and punched Philip in the head. The tenant tried to punch Teddy and so Teddy punched him back in self-defence.
Philip said that he had been punched by the tenant to the left side of his temple.
Yuvraj also said that Philip had been punched to the temple by the tenant.
There is a clear conflict between the different various of events. The tenant provided photographic evidence of his injuries. I am satisfied that physical violence has occurred, but it is far from clear in what circumstances that violence arose, who has been the “instigator” and where has self-defence arisen. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment.
Section 38 RTA grants tenants the right to quiet enjoyment of the rental property. Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act states: (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) That landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. Section.45(1)(e) RTA provides; "The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord's other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises."
What is quiet enjoyment? In Smith v Floris (Auckland TT, 1404/93, 9 March 1994) it was defined as “quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord's agents. The Tribunal went on to say that ”balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships are between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.”
The must be harassment for exemplary damages to be awarded. In Macdonald v Dodds DC Hamilton CIV 2009-019-1524, 26 February 2010 The court considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment “was appropriate in the context of s.38(3) RTA. The court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry or distress” or ”to wear out, tire out or exhaust. The judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
If both parties share the same landlord, the landlord is legally obligated to take reasonable steps to stop the problematic tenant from interfering with the others peace. However, landlords are not responsible for disturbances caused by unrelated neighbours or strangers( Dua & Anor v Macauley NZTT[2024] 5044228, 5061552).
Exemplary damages are not available for breaches of s.45(1)(e) or s.38 RTA, except where the breach in s.38 RTA amounts to harassment. Compensation may be available for breaches of quiet enjoyment despite that breach not amounting to harassment.
I have reviewed the evidence given at the hearing, the documentary evidence and photos provided. In considering the claim under s.38 for breach of quiet enjoyment, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that it is more likely than not that his quiet enjoyment has been breached. There is a substantial difference between the events as described by the three tenants in their statements and the evidence of the tenant. The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The claim under s.45 (1)(e) RTA is different. Has the tenant proven that the landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure that the other tenants did not interfere with his reasonable peace, comfort and privacy? The tenant provided copies of the extensive communication with the landlord throughout the tenancy. That communication sets out in detail the tenant’s concerns.
The landlord has investigated the concerns raised. The landlord spoke to the other tenants and was in the difficult position of having two different versions of events. The landlord having considered the situation, has filed an application with the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy of the tenant on the grounds of having assaulted the other tenants. Essentially, the landlord having investigated has not believed the tenant’s version of events.
For the reasons given above the tenant’s applications including claims for compensation are dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord says that the tenant has assaulted the other tenants. I do not propose going through the evidence again, as it has already been referred to when considering the tenant’s claims.
For precisely the same reasons that the tenant’s claim was dismissed, I dismiss the landlord’s claims. The burden is on the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal with evidence that it is more likely than not that the tenant has assaulted the other three residents. There is a clear conflict of evidence. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven their claim and the claims are dismissed.
As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, I make not order regarding the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Exemplary damages Harassment Boarding House Christchurch

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s33, s38, s9

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Dispute theme: harassment

Property management

LAYTON HOLDINGS LIMITED t/a Quinovic Property Management, as agent for Sarabpreet Singh and Himani Sharma (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5570726 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant and the application by the landlord are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5570726?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5570726?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5570726?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14268197-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.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 21 September 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 14 August 2026 and is current.

The tenanted premise is one bedroom in a three-bedroom house. There is also a granny flat outside. The rooms are let on a room-by-room basis. Each tenant has the exclusive occupation of their room with shared use of the common facilities, kitchen etc. For the purposes of this hearing, it is important to remember that there are four separate tenancies at this house. The number of tenants means that it cannot by definition be considered as a boarding house, nor are the residents flat mates. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, this means the parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so, then their application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Claims

The tenant’s claims for consideration by the Tribunal are; • Breach of quiet enjoyment ( s.38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) • Failure by the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (s.45(1)(e) RTA. • Compensation for costs incurred as a result of the breaches by the landlord. • Exemplary damages • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord’s claims for consideration by the Tribunal are; • Termination of the tenancy for a breach of the RTA incapable of remedy (s.56 and s.55(1)(c)(iv) ( RTA) • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Evidence

The tenant gave evidence at the hearing. The evidence of the three other tenants at the premises Yuvaraj Ravi (“Yuvaraj”), Teddy Leautuli (“Teddy) and Philip Soli (“Philip”) was provided by way of a statement. The Tribunal Is not bound by the usual rules of evidence. It may receive any relevant evidence in any form that is acceptable to the adjudicator. The key issue is the question of weight to be attached to that evidence. Generally, the evidence of a witness who is present at the hearing and available to be cross examined will carry greater weight than the evidence of a witness who gives evidence by way of written statement and is not available for cross examination.

The first incident rose on 24 August 2026 at approximately 11am. The tenant and Philip disagreed on the use of a separate bedroom within the premises. Philip informed the tenant that he was not permitted to use this area. The tenant did not accept this instruction. The disagreement became hostile. Philip called the tenant an idiot and said to the tenant; “are we going to have a problem”? The tenant said that he would raise the matter with the landlord. The tenant made contact with the landlord to discuss the dispute.

The dispute arose again later in the day at approximately 3.30pm. The tenant was preparing to leave the premises. He said that he was physically prevented from leaving the house by Teddy. The tenant said that he was pushed by Teddy and that at that point he pushed Teddy away so as to create some distance and remove him from the tenant's personal space. The tenant disengaged, returned to his bedroom and locked the door as he felt unsafe. The tenant contacted the police and informed them of the incident.

Philip entered the house and became involved in a verbal dispute with the tenant at approximately 3.47 pm. The tenant locked himself in his room as he did not feel safe. The tenant informed the landlord of his concerns. The tenant provided the landlord with a formal incident report and a 14 day notice to remedy the issue with the other tenants. In particular, he raised the concerns regarding physical aggression and his ability to safely enter, leave and use the property.

At approximately 11 am on 25 August 2026, the tenant was in the kitchen. As the tenant went to leave the kitchen he was obstructed by Philip.

At approximately 7 pm the tenant went to the kitchen. Philip was present and said that the tenant couldn’t use the kitchen whilst he was using it. The tenant said that Philip dragged the tenant down the hallway back towards his bedroom.

The tenant returned to the kitchen. During the confrontation that ensued the tenant was struck on the back of his head by Teddy. The Police were called.

On 3 September 2026, a further incident occurred. The tenant said; “I entered the shared kitchen for the ordinary purpose of making coffee. A confrontation developed between Philip and me. I went to the kitchen to make myself a coffee before heading to campus for a lecture. Philip blocked me at the kitchen doorway, and I asked if I could make my coffee. Philip asked if I was going to respect him. I again asked if I could make my coffee. We repeated our statements a few times before I decided that the interaction was not going anywhere and attempted to walk past him to make my coffee. Philip put his hands on me and tried to restrain me. I pushed back to create space. Philip then threw me to the floor and pinned me to the ground twice. During the incident, my shirt was torn, my glasses were damaged and my headphones were knocked off my head. Philip wouldn’t get off me until I was calm, but I said I couldn’t because he was hurting me. Eventually Philip got off me only to tackle me and pin me down again as I was trying to walk back to my room. I don’t know why he tackled me and pinned me the second time. My account is that the confrontation became physical and Philip subjected me to substantial physical force. He threw or moved me around the hallway and repeatedly pinned or restrained me. I then locked myself in my room and called the police. I changed the white shirt that Philip tore as it was unwearable now and changed into a green shirt.”

Statements were provided by the other three tenants. I have tried to limit the review of their evidence to the application of force or any threat to do so.

Teddy said that 25 August 2026 he put his hand on the tenant’s chest to stop him leaving. He said that in a later incident Philip had put the tenant into a bear hug and marched him back to his room. Later the tenant had pushed Uvaraj and punched Philip in the head. The tenant tried to punch Teddy and so Teddy punched him back in self-defence.

Philip said that he had been punched by the tenant to the left side of his temple.

Yuvraj also said that Philip had been punched to the temple by the tenant.

There is a clear conflict between the different various of events. The tenant provided photographic evidence of his injuries. I am satisfied that physical violence has occurred, but it is far from clear in what circumstances that violence arose, who has been the “instigator” and where has self-defence arisen. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment.

Section 38 RTA grants tenants the right to quiet enjoyment of the rental property. Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act states: (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) That landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. Section.45(1)(e) RTA provides; "The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord's other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises."

What is quiet enjoyment? In Smith v Floris (Auckland TT, 1404/93, 9 March 1994) it was defined as “quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord's agents. The Tribunal went on to say that ”balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships are between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.”

The must be harassment for exemplary damages to be awarded. In Macdonald v Dodds DC Hamilton CIV 2009-019-1524, 26 February 2010 The court considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment “was appropriate in the context of s.38(3) RTA. The court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry or distress” or ”to wear out, tire out or exhaust. The judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.

If both parties share the same landlord, the landlord is legally obligated to take reasonable steps to stop the problematic tenant from interfering with the others peace. However, landlords are not responsible for disturbances caused by unrelated neighbours or strangers( Dua & Anor v Macauley NZTT[2024] 5044228, 5061552).

Exemplary damages are not available for breaches of s.45(1)(e) or s.38 RTA, except where the breach in s.38 RTA amounts to harassment. Compensation may be available for breaches of quiet enjoyment despite that breach not amounting to harassment.

I have reviewed the evidence given at the hearing, the documentary evidence and photos provided. In considering the claim under s.38 for breach of quiet enjoyment, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that it is more likely than not that his quiet enjoyment has been breached. There is a substantial difference between the events as described by the three tenants in their statements and the evidence of the tenant. The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. The claim is dismissed.

The claim under s.45 (1)(e) RTA is different. Has the tenant proven that the landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure that the other tenants did not interfere with his reasonable peace, comfort and privacy? The tenant provided copies of the extensive communication with the landlord throughout the tenancy. That communication sets out in detail the tenant’s concerns.

The landlord has investigated the concerns raised. The landlord spoke to the other tenants and was in the difficult position of having two different versions of events. The landlord having considered the situation, has filed an application with the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy of the tenant on the grounds of having assaulted the other tenants. Essentially, the landlord having investigated has not believed the tenant’s version of events.

For the reasons given above the tenant’s applications including claims for compensation are dismissed. Landlord’s claims

The landlord says that the tenant has assaulted the other tenants. I do not propose going through the evidence again, as it has already been referred to when considering the tenant’s claims.

For precisely the same reasons that the tenant’s claim was dismissed, I dismiss the landlord’s claims. The burden is on the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal with evidence that it is more likely than not that the tenant has assaulted the other three residents. There is a clear conflict of evidence. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven their claim and the claims are dismissed.

As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, I make not order regarding the filing fee.

Neither party applied for name suppression.