Tenancy Terminated Due to Serious Tenant Breaches
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because of serious misconduct, including attempts to assault other residents and damaging property. The Tribunal decided the tenant's behavior was too harmful to continue.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy can be terminated if their breaches are serious and incapable of remedy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given notice to the other party, asking them to fix it within at least 10 working days, and the problem was not fixed.
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, which include paying rent on time, using the property mainly for living, keeping it reasonably clean and tidy, and telling the landlord about any damage or repair needs. When moving out, the tenant must leave the property, remove their belongings, and leave it reasonably clean and tidy with all rubbish removed.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to the tenant's serious breaches of conduct.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant due to serious breaches of conduct, including attempted assault and interference with the peace and privacy of other tenants. The Tribunal found the breaches were not capable of remedy and inequitable to refuse termination.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156792 1
[2025] NZTT 5156792
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], at 12:00 noon on Wednesday 26th February 2025.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
4. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156792 2
5. 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.
6. The tenant has breached their obligations by attempting to assault another resident of the complex.
7. The tenant must not cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenant in the use of the premises. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
8. Even after this application was filed by the landlord, the tenant’s behaviour did not improve. The tenant removed the unit number with a knife and the tenant continued getting into further altercations with other tenants both verbally and physically.
9. The breach is not capable of remedy because the tenant has already offended seriously against other tenants in the neighbourhood affecting other people’s safety and wellbeing.
10. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and allow the tenant to continue offending against the landlord and other tenants.
11. Therefore, the tenancy is terminated.
J Yi
24 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156792 3
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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156792 4
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].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant attempted to assault another resident.
- The tenant's behavior did not improve even after the application was filed.
- The tenant removed the unit number with a knife.
- The tenant continued to get into altercations with other tenants.
- The breach is not capable of remedy and is serious.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenant's tenancy due to serious breaches of conduct.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's serious misconduct warranted terminating their tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the breaches were serious, not capable of remedy, and affected the safety and privacy of other tenants.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 56(1) and 40(2)(c), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's breaches were serious and not capable of remedy, making it inequitable to refuse termination.
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 landlords dealing with tenants who engage in serious misconduct, termination of the tenancy may be appropriate if the breaches are not capable of remedy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents, but it mentions the tenant's ongoing misconduct after the application was filed.