Tenancy Terminated After Tenant Threatens to Murder Landlord's Manager
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a lease agreement because the tenant threatened to murder the landlord's manager. The Tribunal relied on the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to make its decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's threat to murder an agent of the landlord justifies terminating the tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord, a member of the landlord's family, an agent of the landlord, or another person living in the building. In this case, the tenant threatened an agent of the landlord.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to a threat of murder against the landlord's manager.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant who threatened to murder the landlord's manager. The Tribunal found the threat credible and acted under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5238311 1
[2025] NZTT 5238311
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
2. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5 pm Thursday 15 May 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
2. The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy because the tenant threatened to murder the landlord’s [NAME] Manager. See section 55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
3. The landlord provided evidence of an email chain between the landlord and the tenant regarding the presence of a cat at the premises. The tenant claimed in the emails both that he was the owner of the [NAME] and that he had the owner’s consent to him having a cat. The final email from the tenant to the landlord on 15 April 2025 read: “Look it up or I’ll murder you.”
4. The landlord filed a report with the police on 15 April 2025 and a copy was supplied to the Tribunal.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5238311 2
5. The landlord explained that the tenancy needed to be terminated because it was unsafe for the [NAME] Manager, her staff and contractors to go to the [NAME] after such a threat had been made.
6. The tenant repeated his claim that he was an owner of the [NAME] and invited me to look it up. The landlord has provided the Record of Title for the [NAME] confirming that the tenant is not recorded as an owner.
7. The tenant denied threatening to murder the [NAME] Manager, even when I read out to him the email which had been provided as evidence. He then suggested that it must have been sent by someone else using his computer.
8. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant sent the email to the [NAME] Manager and threatened her with murder, that is, assault.
9. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in support of the tenant’s suggestion that someone else sent the email. The tenant simply wishes to deny sending it, just as he has insisted on his unsubstantiated claim that he owns the [NAME].
10. Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that 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 the tenant has threatened to assault any agent of the landlord.
11. The Tribunal may refuse to make the order sought by the landlord 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 section 55 RTA applies. See section 55(2) RTA.
12. The High Court has determined that while the threat cannot be undone or remedied, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats to assault the landlord’s agent.
13. In these circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
14. In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) RTA, the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]:
“Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include:
i. The history of the tenancy.
ii. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5238311 3
iii. Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
v. The conduct of the landlord.
vi. The gravity of the breach.
vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
15. In this case:
a. There has not been a history of threats or other issues with the tenancy.
b. As there have been no previous instances of threats, no warnings have been issued.
c. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant would not make further threats.
d. The threat was made intentionally and was committed to writing in an email.
e. A threat to murder someone is a serious breach and may constitute an assault under the definition in the Crimes Act 1961. It is a threat that the landlord has taken seriously by reporting the matter to the police.
f. Such a threat cannot be ignored or dismissed. It is a proportionate response to terminate the tenancy.
16. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 55(2) RTA and that the tenancy should be terminated.
G Baker 07 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5238311 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or [NAME] this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your [NAME].
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant threatened to murder the landlord's manager via email.
- The threat was intentional and documented in writing.
- The threat was considered a serious breach and potential assault.
- The landlord reported the threat to the police, indicating its seriousness.
- The lack of prior issues in the tenancy did not outweigh the severity of the threat.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant denied sending the email claiming someone else must have used his computer.
- The tenant suggested he owned the property, despite evidence proving otherwise.
- The tenant did not provide any evidence to support his claims.
- The tenant's history showed no previous threats or issues, but this was deemed irrelevant given the current threat.
- The tenant argued that termination was an excessive response, but the court found it proportionate.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to terminate the tenancy of a tenant who threatened to murder the landlord's manager.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenancy should be terminated due to a threat of murder made by the tenant against the landlord's manager.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the threat was deemed credible and posed a significant safety risk to the landlord's manager and others.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 55(1)(c), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was the credibility of the tenant's threat to murder the landlord's manager, which justified terminating the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For tenants making threats of violence, it means their tenancy could be terminated immediately without further notice.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The email chain between the landlord and tenant containing the threat was crucial, along with the landlord's report to the police.