What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418449?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lashaay Noema Hughes Tamihere at 36 Halberg Crescent,

How much money was awarded in case 5418449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418449?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13144015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418449?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lashaay Noema Hughes Tamihere at 36 Halberg Crescent,

How much money was awarded in case 5418449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418449?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13144015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Halberg Crescent, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418449 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Lashaay Noema Hughes Tamihere at 36 Halberg Crescent, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 18 February 2026.
The landlord was represented by Ms Thompson-Wise.
This tenancy commenced on 16 April 2024.
The first incident complained of (assaults) took place on 17 November 2025. The second incident complained of (threats) took place on 28 November 2025.
The landlord provided extensive evidence of the history of the tenancy and the difficulties experienced in dealing with the tenant. The Law
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of; • Assaults on the landlord’s staff (s.55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). • Threats to the landlord’s staff (s.55(1)(c)(iii) RTA. • Breaches of the Tenancy Agreement which are incapable of remedy (s.56 RTA). • Breach of the tenants obligations under s.40(2)(c) 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 Assaults
Both Ms S and Ms H are staff members of the landlord.
Ms H said in her statement, that on 17 November 2025 at approximately 3:00 pm, she was at a neighbouring tenant’s property in Hamilton, along with her colleague Ms S.
Whilst sitting in her car, Ms H said that she saw the tenant sitting outside the tenant’s address at 36 Halberg Crescent. Ms H has known the tenant in a working capacity for over a year. Ms H waved out and asked how the tenant was doing.
The tenant said that she was upset because of the loss of her dogs. Ms H expressed her condolences and commented that the tenant’s lawns were looking long and that an unofficial breach letter would be sent to the tenant.
The tenant snapped and was foaming at the mouth. The tenant swore at Ms H and accused her of turning up unannounced. Ms H explained that it wasn’t a formal inspection and that she just happened to be in the area seeing other tenants.
Ms H said that throughout this interaction she remained on the footpath.
The tenant approached Ms H and spat on her. The tenant then pushed Ms H. Ms H said in her statement that “She then pushed me which caused me to become unsteady on my feet, but I didn't fall over. She used both hands and pushed me near my chest/shoulder area. If I had to guess the force she used to push me, I would say it would be about a 7 or 8 out of 10”
Ms S then approached and was also pushed by the tenant.
Ms H and Ms S left the scene. Ms H said that the incident left her left shoulder feeling a bit weak during certain movements. Neither Ms H nor Ms S have returned to work since the incident. They have both suffered from physical injuries as well as ongoing anxiety and PTSD.
The statement from Ms S supported the evidence from Ms H. For her part in the incident, Ms S said that she intervened by placing her left arm between the tenant and Ms H. The tenant then pushed Ms S.
Mr H, the Team leader for the two staff members, said that the assaults had had an ongoing effect not only on these staff members, but on others who have had to take on additional workloads and providing pastoral care for staff.
Police were called. Evidence was given by the landlord that charges relating to the assaults are pending. Threat
On 27 November 2025, in response to the incident, a s.55A RTA notice was issued to the tenant pending this application to the Tribunal.
On 28 November 2025, Ms C, a staff member of the landlord, contacted the tenant by telephone to discuss the issue of the notice. During this conversation, the tenant became agitated and expressed her anger about receiving the notice.
Ms C said that the tenant threatened her. The tenant said “I will come and smash your head in. I will bring all my family to your office. Who do you think you are? I will take you out.” The statements were delivered loudly and in an aggressive tone the threats left Ms C feeling targeted and unsafe.
As a precaution, the office was placed into lockdown, and police were contacted. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant said that on 17 November 2025, she was feeling particularly stressed and depressed as a result of the loss of her dogs. She said that she had ongoing mental health issues and felt unsociable and isolated.
She saw Ms H who called out to her. Ms H questioned her about the state of her lawns. Matters spiralled out of hand. The tenant suggested that the failure by Ms H to recognise her heightened state and to simply walk away justified her pushing both Ms H and subsequently Ms S. She said, “I don't do anything to anyone unless you step in my space.” She what had occurred and apologised for her actions.
She said that the telephone call on 28 November 2025 simply retriggered her anxiety and stress. When she was arrested, she said that she didn’t recall the phone call. Analysis
“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. It is more likely than not that both Ms H and Ms S have been assaulted by the tenant. That landlord’s evidence consists of; • Statements from the complainants Ms H and Ms S, which were not substantially disputed by the tenant. • Statements from other related witnesses setting out the effect of the incident on the staff and organisation
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 staff member.
A threat has been made to a staff member of the landlord. The tenant did not raise any substantial defence to this, other than to say at one time that she did not remember the phone call. The call would have been most distressing for both the staff member receiving it and other staff. Section 55(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened any staff member.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has both assaulted and threatened the landlord’s staff members.
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 assaults and the threats having been committed cannot be remedied.
The tenant’s conduct has created an ongoing and significant risk to the safety and wellbeing of the landlord’s staff.
Despite repeated engagement attempts and offers of support, the tenant has continued to exhibit aggressive, threatening, and violent behaviour, including physical assaults on two Housing Support Managers .
The landlord has exhausted all reasonable avenues to manage the tenancy without resorting to termination, including more than 20 engagement attempts and provision of support services. Despite the tenant often appearing remorseful, these efforts have not resulted in sustained behavioural change.
Refusing termination would unfairly expose staff to further harm, compromise the landlord’s statutory obligations to provide safe housing environments, and undermine the integrity of the RTA provisions designed to protect individuals from violence and harassment. 42The assault was on the landlord’s staff. Other than apology at the hearing, no other compensation has been proffered by the tenant and accordingly compensation to the landlord has not occurred.
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-off incident, I may have considered it reasonable to decide that a further breach of this nature was unlikely. That is not what I have found to have occurred. There has been a history of poor conduct by the tenant. There were two separate assaults and the threats in the phone call sometime later. This indicates an inability by the tenant to control her violent and threatening behaviour. The tenant cannot say that her actions were justified in any manner.
As a result, the tenancy is terminated immediately.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants application is dismissed.
The tenant indicated at the hearing that she did not have a current e-mail address. The landlord undertook to arrange to serve this notice on the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418449 — 14-day notice at 36 Halberg Crescent, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418449 — 14-day notice at 36 Halberg Crescent, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions