Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5304703 — 14-day notice at 26 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061
Decided 24 Jul 2025 · Published 24 Jul 2025 · Application 5304703
Landlord favoured
- 14-day notice
- Harassment
Order
- The tenancy of Roydon Jovanovic at 26 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, immediately.
- Roydon Jovanovic will pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the sum of $28.00 immediately being the fling for this application.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted remotely. The landlord’s representative attended the hearing as did Mr Jovanovic. Mr O, the victim of the alleged threatened assault and Mr T, a neighbour also attended to give evidence.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) to terminate the tenancy.
- The tenant occupies a unit, in one of 3O single person units. The units are managed by Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). The tenancy commenced on 24 February 2022.
- As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court, and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlord’s submissions and evidence
- This application relates to two neighbours who live directly next door to each other in the complex. The landlord claims the tenant threatened to” slice up” his neighbour and the tenant has acknowledged he was holding a sword at that time. Mr T’s evidence
- The alleged victim, Mr O gave evidence that: • Roy, his neighbour from unit 26 threatened to kill him with a machete on Tuesday 17 June at about 7pm. • He had lived in the unit for about 3 years and a while after he moved in he started having issues with his neighbour, Roy, when he drinks and he would bang on the walls, accusing him of the music being too loud. He has never had Noise Control speak to him (OCHT confirmed this to be the case after they made enquires of the Council). • About 3 weeks before this incident his son was at his house and they were playing music in the evening. He was worried about Roy having an issue, so told his son to turn the music down, which he did. His son then went to Roy's house to make sure it had been ok. Roy told him it was and there were no issues. In the past Roy and his son have had some issues. • About 2 weeks ago Roy and his friend Mark were banging on his door yelling at him calling him a noisy disrespectful prick. They were drunk,. He had just got home and was not playing any music and didn't answer the door to them. • There have not been any other issues and he hadn’t spoken to Roy since. On Tuesday 17 June at about 6:30 his son came to see him and parked in the car park over the grass from his unit. At about 7pm his son left and Mr O walked him over to his car, he got in it and left. • He then walked about halfway across the compound, the grass back towards his unit. Roy was standing outside his unit, he had a weapon in his hand. He couldn't quite see but thought it was a gun. • Roy threatened he and his son, he said" I'm going slice you and your son up" 'make sure your f.... n son does not knock on my door, I'm going to slice him up next time he does it". • Mr O said he froze when Roy came towards him a few steps, as he was then on the grass. The weapon he had first seen was in fact a slasher or machete. He was holding it in his right hand. When he saw the machete he believed he was capable of using it on him. He was shaking and just got inside his unit and locked the door. He said Roy was clearly drunk. • He then heard another tenant “J” having a go at Roy, telling not to pull a knife and arguing with him. • He advised the Police of the incident, but he didn’t want them coming around as he believed it would escalate matters. • At 1.27am on 18 June Mr O was feeling very scared and he texted the Manager advising him that Roy had threatened him with a knife about 7pm and he was drunk and out of control. The Tribunal have sighted a copy of this text and it was received by the Manager. • Mr O said last Thursday the tenant was banging on the wall between their units for a lengthy period, calling him a nark and that he was going to kill he and his son. • Mr O told the Tribunal he was petrified for his life now and too scared to return to his unit after the hearing.
- The tenant had no questions for Mr O. Evidence of Mr T
- Mr T is also a resident of the complex and lives a few units away from Roy and Mr O.
- His evidence was; • That on the evening of 17 June, when it was dark, hey was inside his unit and heard an altercation outside. He waited a few minutes at his door to listen what was happening and it appeared Roy was having a conversation with another tenant in the complex who did not wish to be involved in these proceedings or with the police. Mr. T heard Roy said he wanted to slash up Mr O and hhis son and the other tenant told him he couldn't do that. Roy was going on about something happening at 3:00 AM in the morning disturbing him all the time. • Mr. T said it was dark but he saw something in his hand hanging and Roy being very staunch about Mr O. He almost called the police but the altercation died down after while he left it. • A couple of weeks ago prior to the hearing Roy had been drinking and came over to Mr T’s unit and after talking he told Mr. T he wanted to slash Mr O up and kill him. • In questioning Mr T said he wasn’t sure what was in Roy’s hand as it was dark but it was a weapon of some sort.
- The tenant had only one comment to make at the end of Mr T’s evidence and that was that he disputed the time. Evidence of Mr Jovanovic
- The tenant said that he had never had an issue with music coming from Mr. O’s unit and never complained about that. What did concern him was that over a long period Mr O in the early hours of the mornings thumps around in his unit, opening and closing doors. The tenant said he is sure it is not intentional but it does severely interfere with his sleep. The main issue was that Mr O's son and his associates who are gang members continually harass him.
- He strongly denied the evidence given by Mr O and Mr. T of their interpretation of that evening. He said incident took place in daylight around about 4:00 PM.
- He said he never walked across the grass area towards Mr O but he had borrowed a sword some days earlier and he stood outside his unit with the sword across his shoulders.
- He said Mr. O did not walk across the grass towards the unit but walked around the edge of the cul-de-sac towards his own unit and at no time passed the tenant.
- He passed a message onto Mr. O that he didn't want his son harassing him and he made it plain to him that it was a sword that was over his shoulders. He then placed his sword inside.
- When questioned as to why he had the sword and why he headed outside with it he said he wanted it to be clear to Mr O that he didn’t want his son coming over and harassing him. When questioned as to what he would do if the son came over he said he would ring the police.
- He strongly denied making any threats to Mr O. Termination The law
- The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section 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))].
- Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
- In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis
- I have carefully considered the landlord’s submissions, and the evidence of Mr O, Mr T and the tenant.
- I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did threaten Mr O by holding a weapon, whether it was machete, a knife or as it happened a sword (sheathed or not), threatening to slice he and his son up if Mr O’s son goes to his door again and that Mr O believed on reasonable grounds that he had the ability to effect his purpose. My finding is further supported by the text message sent to the Manager at 1.27am on 18 June outlining the threat. He was fearful for his life and in giving his evidence was clearly still very fearful of what might happen when the tenant next starts drinking.
- I place no weight on the disputed evidence as to when the event occurred, whether it was 4pm or 7pm but both Mr O and Mr T were consistent with their evidence that is was dark and Mr T said because of the darkness while he could see the tenant was holding a weapon he couldn’t identify exactly what it was.
- The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) are established.
- The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
- I regard the threat to kill that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on Mr O, fearing for his life, and raised concerns for other people in the complex. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he return to the complex. It should also be noted that by having possession of an offensive weapon capable of being used for causing bodily injury is a criminal offence under Section 202A Crimes Act 1961 liable for a term of imprisonment.
- The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
- Because OCHT has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression was not sought.