Tenancy Terminated Due to Tenant Assault
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease after the tenant assaulted another tenant in the same building. The Tribunal used the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to justify the termination.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's assault on another tenant in the same building justifies termination of their 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 assaulted, or threatened to assault, the landlord, a member of the landlord's family, an agent of the landlord, or another person living in the same building.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to an assault on another tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of the tenant after finding that the tenant had assaulted another tenant in the same building. The Tribunal relied on Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows termination of a tenancy if the tenant assaults another occupier of the building.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 1
[2025] NZTT 5211871
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], at 2.30pm on Wednesday 23 April 2025.
2. This order may be enforced immediately.
Reasons:
1. The hearing was conducted by telephone. Only the landlord’s representative attended.
2. The Tribunal received a message on 17 April that the tenant had lost her mobile telephone and that she would attend the hearing using a telephone belonging to a support person. The Tribunal telephoned the support person at the time of the hearing and the support person answered. She said that the tenant was not with her, and she would try to find her in the building where they had arranged to
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 2
meet. I adjourned the hearing for 10 minutes and then called the support person again who said that she had not be able to locate the tenant.
3. The Tribunal then telephoned the tenant’s mobile telephone number in case she had recovered her telephone. The call was connected but went straight to voicemail. I then proceeded with the hearing.
4. The landlord has applied under s55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) for termination of the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has assaulted another of the landlord’s tenants (the other tenant) who occupies a unit in the same building as the tenant’s unit.
5. Section 55 of the Act relevantly states –
(1) Subject to subsection (2), 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 assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:
(iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part:
(2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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)).
(3) It shall not be necessary for the landlord to give to the tenant notice of the landlord’s intention to apply under this section for an order terminating the tenancy.
6. The following description of the incident that has given rise to this application comes primarily from video footage of the incident and written accounts by the landlord’s staff who were present.
7. On 22 March 2025 the other tenant was in the reception area of the building that she and the tenant reside in. The other tenant is physically disabled, and she was sitting in a mobile scooter. She said that her swipe card was not working, and she wanted the staff to sort it out. She had become abusive towards the staff including racially abusive.
8. The tenant entered the reception area and went up to the other tenant and spoke to her. The other tenant then became abusive towards the tenant including racially abusive.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/whole.html#LMS246412
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 3
9. The tenant then laid hands on the other tenant and some grappling between them took place. At one point the tenant held her hand to the other tenant’s neck.
10. Staff then intervened and separated the two tenants, and the tenant left the reception area.
11. A few minutes later the tenant entered the reception area again and took up a position behind the other tenant. The tenant then used her left arm to hold the other tenant’s hair and pull back her head and with her right had she produced a knife from her top and held it to the other tenant’s throat. She challenged the other tenant to “say something now”.
12. Staff again intervened and they were able to restrain the tenant and pull her away from the other tenant. The tenant then left the reception area, and the other tenant and staff called the Police. They arrested the tenant and charged her with three counts of assault.
13. Plainly the tenant has assaulted an occupier of the building of which the premises constitutes part. Section 55(1)(c) of the Act is therefore engaged and, subject to subsection (2) the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. The acts of assault were serious, especially the restraint and putting the knife to the other tenant’s throat. They cannot be treated as an understandable and impulsive reaction to the other tenant’s abuse.
14. The conditions of subsection (2) that allow the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy are not met in this case. The assault is not something that is capable of remedy. No amount of contrition or apology can dispel the shock and fear of the attack.
15. I am also not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will not commit any further breach of the same kind. Given that the tenant walked away from a situation that was not physically threatening to her, armed herself with a knife, returned, and held it to the other tenant’s throat with the implicit threat that she would use the knife on her, I cannot find that it is unlikely that she will not commit another assault in breach of the Act.
16. I note that the tenant has produced some statements from people who speak of her good work in the community and the support that she gives others who are in challenging circumstances. Such work is highly commendable and no doubt much needed and appreciated. But it does not assist the tenant in this case. The Act applies and the Tribunal has no choice but to terminate the tenancy. I note that the landlord has obligations to its other tenants and no doubt it would be severely criticised if it did not seek termination, and the tenant committed another, possibly more serious, assault of one of its other tenants.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 4
17. Given the serious nature of the assault, I have ordered that this order may be enforced immediately.
[NAME]
23 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5211871 6
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 assaulted another tenant in the same building.
- The assault included physical contact and the use of a knife.
- The assault was not remedied and the landlord was not compensated.
- The Tribunal found it likely the tenant would commit further assaults.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's community service and support for others were considered commendable but irrelevant to the case.
- The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that the assault was incapable of remedy beyond the incident itself.
- The tenant's contrition and apologies were deemed insufficient to prevent termination of the tenancy.
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 the tenant who assaulted another tenant in the same building.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's assault on another tenant in the same building justified the termination of their tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant's actions constituted a serious assault on another tenant, which is grounds for termination under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's assault on another tenant in the same building was a serious breach of the tenancy agreement and warranted 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 someone in a similar situation, committing an assault on another tenant in the same building could lead to the termination of their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included video footage of the incident and written accounts by the landlord’s staff who were present.