What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4854003?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jayme Lee Hignett at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4854003?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854003?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10279639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4854003?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jayme Lee Hignett at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4854003?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854003?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10279639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854003 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jayme Lee Hignett at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was notified about the hearing by post and I telephoned her on the numbers provided but she did not answer the calls.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault on 24 March 2024 at a multi unit Kāinga Ora complex. The questions I have to consider are: • Was there an assault? • Should I use my discretion?

Was there an assault?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex. This means I can end the tenancy if the tenant threatened to assault another tenant who lives in the same complex.
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.
Two people employed by the landlord gave evidence as witnesses. I have agreed they will not be named in this order. They both gave their names during the hearing and answered my questions.
The witnesses described physical fights that broke out between the tenant and two other tenants also living in the complex. I saw clear CCTV footage of the fights. Some of the fights show the tenant was the victim of violence, and she looked to be defending herself. However, at one point the tenant went to a main entrance and used a lighter and a can of deodorant to make flames and use this as a weapon. It seems most likely to me the tenant threatened to assault another tenant. The witnesses said other occupiers of the complex were also present.
The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence at all from the tenant. I find it is most likely the tenant intended to threaten another tenant.

Should I use my discretion?

The landlord submitted that I could not use my discretion under section 55(2) RTA because an assault is not a breach which is capable of remedy. This exact point was considered in the District Court in Haitana v Housing New Zealand Corporation. This was 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.
Judge Abbott considered the correct approach to s.55(2) was as set out in Collins v Housing New Zealand Corporation decided in the High Court, and said - “In essence, Kean J held that 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. As Keane J put it (paras [37]-[38], 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-2006-009- 003335, DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004
I find I should consider my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. Further, the tenant did not attend the hearing, which means I have no way of assessing if there is a likelihood of another assault.
I am persuaded I should end this tenancy because of the threat to assault another occupier of the building.

Order

The tenancy of Jayme Lee Hignett at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was notified about the hearing by post and I telephoned her on the numbers provided but she did not answer the calls.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of an assault on 24 March 2024 at a multi unit Kāinga Ora complex. The questions I have to consider are: • Was there an assault? • Should I use my discretion?

Was there an assault?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex. This means I can end the tenancy if the tenant threatened to assault another tenant who lives in the same complex.
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.
Two people employed by the landlord gave evidence as witnesses. I have agreed they will not be named in this order. They both gave their names during the hearing and answered my questions.
The witnesses described physical fights that broke out between the tenant and two other tenants also living in the complex. I saw clear CCTV footage of the fights. Some of the fights show the tenant was the victim of violence, and she looked to be defending herself. However, at one point the tenant went to a main entrance and used a lighter and a can of deodorant to make flames and use this as a weapon. It seems most likely to me the tenant threatened to assault another tenant. The witnesses said other occupiers of the complex were also present.
The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence at all from the tenant. I find it is most likely the tenant intended to threaten another tenant.

Should I use my discretion?

The landlord submitted that I could not use my discretion under section 55(2) RTA because an assault is not a breach which is capable of remedy. This exact point was considered in the District Court in Haitana v Housing New Zealand Corporation. This was 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.
Judge Abbott considered the correct approach to s.55(2) was as set out in Collins v Housing New Zealand Corporation decided in the High Court, and said - “In essence, Kean J held that 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. As Keane J put it (paras [37]-[38], 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-2006-009- 003335, DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004
I find I should consider my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. Further, the tenant did not attend the hearing, which means I have no way of assessing if there is a likelihood of another assault.
I am persuaded I should end this tenancy because of the threat to assault another occupier of the building.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854003 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854003 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 620, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions