Tenant's Tenancy Terminated for Threats and Assaults on Neighbors
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because the tenant had threatened and assaulted neighbors. The Tribunal ruled that such behavior justified ending the tenancy immediately.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy can be terminated if they threaten or assault a neighbour.
📖 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 any other person living in the building.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to threats and assaults on neighbours.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant who had threatened and assaulted neighbors. The Tribunal found that the tenant's actions warranted immediate termination of the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5244958 1
[2025] NZTT 5244958
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WELLINGTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], [ADDRESS]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], [ADDRESS] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], immediately.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing.
2. The tenant was served using an electronic address and sent reminders. He did not attend the hearing.
3. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of a threat to assault a neighbour on 22 April 2025, and an assault on another neighbour on 1 May 2025. The questions I have to consider are:
• Was there an assault and was there a threat to assault?
• Should I use my discretion?
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5244958 2
Was there a threat to assault and was there an assault?
4. Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, … the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex, or any neighbour.
5. The person who was said there was a threat to assault gave evidence as a witness. The tenancy premises is one of 21 units in a complex. The witness is a neighbour and he lives in the same complex.
6. The witness said he was threatened by the tenant on 22 April 2025. After he went to the tenant’s unit about loud music the tenant charged towards the witness with a machete and said he would cleave his head open. The police were called, and the tenant was arrested and bailed to the premises. I was provided with a letter from Victim Support confirming the witness was the victim of a crime. The witness is wary since the threat and has been taking extra precautions when he is at home.
7. The landlord said that since the application was filed the tenant has also assaulted a different neighbour who lives in the same complex. The neighbour suffered from broken ribs and bruising and spent a night in hospital. This neighbour was too traumatised to give evidence as a witness and the police had not yet responded to the landlord’s request under the Official Information Act. The landlord said the police have arrested the tenant and he is currently in prison on remand.
8. I find there was a threat to assault. It seems most likely to me there was also an assault. I find there are grounds to end the tenancy.
Should I use my discretion?
9. Section 55(2) RTA says “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)).” Section 78A is not relevant here.
10. The District Court in [NAME] v [NAME] Corporation considered a situation where a tenant had been convicted of an assault and the landlord subsequently applied for termination of the tenancy in the Tenancy Tribunal. The decision was appealed to the District Court. The Judge said -
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=LMS246412#LMS246412 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=LMS246412#LMS246412
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5244958 3
“In essence, … the fact that a breach may not be capable of remedy, i.e. in the context of an assault which has been committed, is not determinative in the section 55(2) context.
… the preferable interpretation of section 55(2) is to put aside a breach which cannot be remedied and then consider the issue of termination by reference to the other two preconditions for the exercise of the discretion, i.e. compensation, if any, to the landlord and the likelihood or otherwise of any further similar breach by the tenant.” See CIV-2006-[PHONE], DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004
11. I am not exercising my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. It seems most likely to me there is a serious risk of further assaults and threats. I find this tenancy should end immediately.
Suppression
12. The landlord has applied for suppression. This is usually allowed if the landlord is the most successful party. However the landlord is a social housing provider and there is public interest in social housing. Accordingly, the landlord’s name will be published. See section 95A RTA.
[NAME]
12 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5244958 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 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5244958 5
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 threatened a neighbour with a machete and said he would cleave his head open.
- The police were called, and the tenant was arrested and bailed to the premises after the threat.
- A letter from Victim Support confirmed the neighbour was a victim of a crime.
- The tenant assaulted a different neighbour, causing broken ribs and bruising, and the neighbour spent a night in hospital.
- There is a serious risk of further assaults and threats from the tenant.
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 tenant's tenancy immediately due to threats and assaults on neighbors.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's threats and assaults on neighbors were sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant had threatened and assaulted neighbors, which is a violation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant had threatened and assaulted neighbors, 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 someone in a similar situation, threatening or assaulting neighbors could lead to the termination of their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included statements from neighbors who were threatened and assaulted, and police reports.