What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403029?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul Mako at 22 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

How much money was awarded in case 5403029?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12989317-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403029?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul Mako at 22 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

How much money was awarded in case 5403029?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12989317-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5403029 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403029 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Both parties attended the video hearing on 15 January 2026.

The landlord was represented by Mr Bayles. The tenant was represented by Mr Davies.

The tenancy commenced on 27 August 2025.

The tenanted premises form part of a large residential complex operated by the landlord. The tenant resides at a single bedroom unit in the complex.

The incident took place on 20 November 2025 in an area consisting of the tenant’s premises and also a common area in the complex.

The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of an assault (s.55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and a breach of the tenant’s obligations that is not capable of remedy (s.56(1)(a) RTA).

The landlord must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it.”

This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.” It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Landlord’s Evidence

The tenant Paul was in his unit playing music.

Another tenant from the complex considered the music to be excessively loud and raised this issue with the Paul. The other tenant considered that the music had either not been turned down at all or had not been turned down sufficiently and returned to complain to Paul. The tenant considered that Paul had done nothing to alleviate the situation so she went and asked another tenant at the complex (Regan) to accompany her to Paul’s unit.

The landlord accepts that a fight has taken place between Paul and Regan at the entrance to Paul’s unit.

The landlord says that Regan disengaged from the fight and has started to walk away from Paul’s unit. Paul followed him. Further words are exchanged. Paul has then punched Regan in the nose causing it to bleed. Regan has subsequently confirmed in a telephone call that his nose had been broken.

In a written, but unsigned statement, a witness said that she saw the fight. She said “ I saw the Maori guy swing a punch to the other guy and he connected with him. I heard a fist connecting with face. There was blood out his nose....”(sic)

The landlord discussed the incident with Paul. Paul denied having hit Regan. He said that he tried to swing his fist at Regan but missed because he was sick. Tenant’s evidence

Paul’s evidence is that he was assaulted by Regan both inside his unit and then again at the entranceway to the unit. Paul says he then followed Regan in an attempt to deescalate the situation. He accepts having thrown a punch at Regan on the pathway but does not accept that the punch has landed. He says that the punch was thrown in self defence as part of an ongoing attack by Regan. It was a pre-emptive strike. Video evidence

Somewhat unusually, two separate videos exist of the incident taken from different angles. The videos were provided to the Tribunal.

I have reviewed the videos and make the following findings;

The videos do not show what occurred inside Paul’s unit. They do show Regan approaching the unit. Loud voices can be heard and a fight ensues between Paul and Regan at the entranceway to the unit with both parties exchanging blows. It is impossible to tell who the aggressor in this fight as the view is partially blocked.

Regan walks away from Paul in the direction of his own unit.

The verbal argument involving both Paul and Regan continues as Regan walks away.

Three other tenants can be seen in the video watching on, including one tenant with a baby in her hand.

Paul follows Regan and takes at least 8 steps to follow Regan.

Regan turns around and returns to where Paul is standing. Paul takes a step or two forward.

Regan is standing in front of Paul with his arms at his side. Paul punches Regan. It is only as Paul throws the punch that Regan raises his arms.

Having reviewed the video, I find that Paul has struck Regan in the face.

“Assault” is defined in the Crimes Act 1961 as the intentional application of force to the person of another. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. I find that the Paul has assaulted Regan. The video shows Paul punching Regan in the face. I find that the punch has connected and caused Regan’s nose to bleed.

The tenant relies on a defence of self-defence.

Section 48(1) Crimes Act 1961 provides that “everyone is justified in using, in defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use”.

Self-defence is a defence both in criminal law and civil proceedings. It can be used to end an assault or to avoid any kind of further assault, by a defendant using force to break away from someone who is unlawfully restraining them.

Self-defence involves 3 questions; • Did the defendant use force for the purpose of defending himself? • What were the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be? • Was the force used reasonable in those circumstances?

In this matter, Paul has referred to the previous assaults which he said had occurred and said that essentially his punch was a pre-emptive strike.

What is reasonable force to use to protect oneself when faced with a threat or physical force must depend on the imminence and seriousness of the threat and the opportunity to seek protection without recourse to the use of force.

In Vincent v R [2015] NZCA 201 the Court of Appeal held that “While the imminence of the threat is not treated as a distinct or separate requirement, the authorities have emphasised that the imminence or immediacy of the threat is a factor that is to be weighed in assessing whether the defence is available. There is a question of fact and degree. Amongst other things, the opportunities available to the defendant to seek protection or adopt some other alternative course of action are to be considered. The defendant must have seen himself or herself is under a real threat of danger and not merely believed that there may be some future danger.”

I consider the following to be relevant in considering the defence of self-defence raised by Paul. • Paul has the opportunity to disengage when Regan first walked away. He could simply have returned to his unit. He had the opportunity to call the Police at that time had he so wished. • Paul has initially followed Reagan as Regan walked away. • Paul took steps towards Regan prior to throwing the punch. • At the time that the punch was thrown, Regan’s hands were at his side.

For those reasons, I find that the defence of self-defence is not available to Paul. An alternative course of action was available to Paul other than following Regan.

Section 55(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted any neighbour.

Section 55(2) RTA provide that 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.

In considering the discretion in section 55(2) RTA the court held in Collins v Housing New Zealand HC Christchurch CIV 2004-409-717, 2 July 2004 that “A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent, that could mean that a technical assault or words in haste, could pre-empt the Tribunal from considering the 2 remaining issues in s.55(2), which are of equal significance. I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, the issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the 2 remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite a defect or breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order.”

The assault having been committed cannot be remedied.

The assault was not on the landlord, and accordingly compensation to the landlord is not a relevant consideration.

That leaves the issue of whether the Tribunal considers it unlikely that there will be a further breach of this nature in the future. Had this been a one punch incident, I may have considered it reasonable to consider that a further breach of this nature was unlikely. That is not what I have found to have occurred. The incident seems to have commenced in Paul’s unit. The video does not show what occurred inside the unit and I am minded to accept Paul’s version of events that he was assaulted inside the unit. The incident progressed outside where both parties can be seen fighting. Paul has then followed Regan as goes to leave. The continuation and Paul’s readiness to throw a punch to the face whilst Regan was not defending himself are acts which indicate a propensity to violence. In those circumstances, I do not propose invoking the discretion in s.55(2) RTA.

As a result, the tenancy is terminated.

As Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403029 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Both parties attended the video hearing on 15 January 2026.

The landlord was represented by Mr Bayles. The tenant was represented by Mr Davies.

The tenancy commenced on 27 August 2025.

The tenanted premises form part of a large residential complex operated by the landlord. The tenant resides at a single bedroom unit in the complex.

The incident took place on 20 November 2025 in an area consisting of the tenant’s premises and also a common area in the complex.

The landlord must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

The tenant Paul was in his unit playing music.

The landlord accepts that a fight has taken place between Paul and Regan at the entrance to Paul’s unit.

The landlord discussed the incident with Paul. Paul denied having hit Regan. He said that he tried to swing his fist at Regan but missed because he was sick. Tenant’s evidence

Somewhat unusually, two separate videos exist of the incident taken from different angles. The videos were provided to the Tribunal.

I have reviewed the videos and make the following findings;

Regan walks away from Paul in the direction of his own unit.

The verbal argument involving both Paul and Regan continues as Regan walks away.

Three other tenants can be seen in the video watching on, including one tenant with a baby in her hand.

Paul follows Regan and takes at least 8 steps to follow Regan.

Regan turns around and returns to where Paul is standing. Paul takes a step or two forward.

Regan is standing in front of Paul with his arms at his side. Paul punches Regan. It is only as Paul throws the punch that Regan raises his arms.

Having reviewed the video, I find that Paul has struck Regan in the face.

The tenant relies on a defence of self-defence.

In this matter, Paul has referred to the previous assaults which he said had occurred and said that essentially his punch was a pre-emptive strike.

For those reasons, I find that the defence of self-defence is not available to Paul. An alternative course of action was available to Paul other than following Regan.

Section 55(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted any neighbour.

The assault having been committed cannot be remedied.

The assault was not on the landlord, and accordingly compensation to the landlord is not a relevant consideration.

As a result, the tenancy is terminated.

As Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403029 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403029 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions