Tenancy Terminated Due to Methamphetamine Contamination
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a lease because the rental unit was contaminated with methamphetamine, making it unsafe for the tenant to live in. The landlord showed that the contamination levels were high enough to pose health risks, resulting in the tenant having to leave the premises.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy can be terminated if the premises are contaminated with methamphetamine.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows a tenant to ask the Tenancy Tribunal to cancel a notice ending their tenancy if they believe the landlord gave the notice because the tenant complained or used their rights as a tenant. The tenant must apply within 14 working days of receiving the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to methamphetamine contamination.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated a tenancy due to methamphetamine contamination, making the premises unsafe to occupy. The landlord provided evidence of contamination levels exceeding safety thresholds, leading to the termination of the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 1
[2025] NZTT 5151092
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
2. The tenancy of [NAME] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6.00 pm on Friday 21 February 2025.
3. [NAME] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing by phone call.
2. The tenant was telephoned twice on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The landlord confirmed she also provided the tenant with notice of the hearing on 10 February 2025. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
3. The landlord is a social housing provider. On 29 January 2025 the landlord gave the tenant 7 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons:
a. Extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while the work is being
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 2
done. The work must begin immediately, or material steps towards it are to be taken.
b. Due to Meth contamination to the property, is no longer safe to occupy this unit. Unit will require extensive repairs to comply with Health and Safety regulations.
4. The tenant has not vacated the premises pursuant to that notice.
5. The landlord has now applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Relevant legal considerations
6. The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
7. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy1 in practical terms this means that:… [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
8. The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be.2
Termination
9. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.3
10. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 3 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM94278.html?src=qs
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 3
11. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
12. There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done.
13. In [NAME] v [NAME] 4 the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy:
…Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). the breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs.
It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
14. It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
15. In [NAME] v [NAME], 5 the Court held that a breach of section 40(2)(b), concerning allegations of possession and use of illegal drugs, was a breach that was incapable of remedy, and there was no requirement to issue a breach notice.
16. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.6 Possession and use of methamphetamine is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
17. The following methamphetamine testing has been undertaken on the premises:
4Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, para [46]-[47] 5 [NAME] v [NAME] DC Blenheim, CIV 2008-006-33, 19 March 2008 6 See section 40(2)(b) of the RTA.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 4
a. The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2020. On 28 November 2020 a 3 sample composite test of the lounge/bedroom, bathroom and kitchen was taken which provided a result of 0.04 ug/100cm². Pre tenancy testing therefore confirmed negligible methamphetamine residue at the property.
b. On 22 January 2025 a 3-sample composite test of the lounge, kitchen and bathroom was taken which provided a result of 10.9 ug/100cm², providing a theoretical maximum of 32.6 ug/100cm². The testing confirms that methamphetamine has been used at the property during the tenancy.
18. The tenant has breached their obligations by using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 7 The breach is not capable of remedy.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
19. In [NAME] v [NAME] the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach …”is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy”.
20. [ADDRESS] set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being:
a. The history of the tenancy.
b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
e. The conduct of the landlord.
f. The gravity of the breach.
g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
21. Having regard to these factors I note:
a. The tenancy commenced in 2020 and is therefore a long tenancy.
b. There has not been a persistent failure by the tenant to comply with their obligations, although the landlord provided oral evidence of some antisocial behaviour.
c. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I therefore consider I can infer the breach to be deliberate. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose is a serious and grave breach of the tenants’ obligations. I consider methamphetamine use giving rise to contamination cannot be permitted to continue.
d. There is no evidence that the landlord has acted inappropriately.
7 See section 40 (2) (b) of the RTA.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 5
22. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons above.
23. The tenancy is terminated.
Filing fee
24. Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression
25. At the hearing the landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. 8
[NAME] 14 February 2025
8 See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151092 6
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 property 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 property.
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 landlord proved that the property had methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy.
- The tenant breached their obligations by using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
- The breach of using the premises for an unlawful purpose cannot be fixed.
- It would be unfair to not end the tenancy given the serious nature of the breach.
- The landlord succeeded entirely with their claim, so the tenant must pay the filing fee.
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 due to methamphetamine contamination, making the premises unsafe to occupy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenancy should be terminated because the rental unit was contaminated with methamphetamine.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the contamination levels exceeded safety thresholds, making the premises unsafe for the tenant to live in.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine, making them unsafe to occupy.
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 someone in a similar situation, if their rental unit is contaminated with methamphetamine, the tenancy could be terminated to ensure the safety of all occupants.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of methamphetamine contamination levels and the landlord's notice of termination were crucial.