What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424108?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Melvin Moffett at 18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is

How much money was awarded in case 5424108?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424108?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13067156-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424108?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Melvin Moffett at 18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is

How much money was awarded in case 5424108?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424108?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13067156-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424108 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424108 — 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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424108 — 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

Order

The tenancy of Melvin Moffett at 18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at
59 am on Wednesday 18 February 2026.
Melvin Moffett must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 3 February 2026.
The landlord was represented by Mr Olds.
The tenancy commenced on 8 August 2014.
The tenanted premises form part of a larger residential complex operated by the landlord. The tenant resides at a unit in the complex.
The incident complained of took place on 24 December 2025 in a communal area of the complex.
Both parties provided extensive evidence of the history of the tenancy and the relationship between the tenant and the complainant, Ms E. That evidence was helpful in understanding the animosity between the parties. In particular, the tenant provided evidence of having been assaulted by Ms E earlier in 2025. Whether that assault occurred or not, is not something that I am required to decide upon, although it may be relevant when considering the conflict of evidence disclosed in the respective parties evidence of what occurred on 24 December 2025. The sole issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether Ms E was assaulted by the tenant on 24 December 2025. The Law
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of an assault (s.55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and reimbursement of the filing fee.
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
Ms E is a tenant at the complex. She said that on the afternoon of 24 December 2025 she was in the communal area. She saw the tenant arrive home in his vehicle. The tenant got out of his vehicle. He started walking towards his unit. Ms E formed the opinion that the tenant was drunk and that he had been drink driving. She accepted that she verbally abused the tenant for his actions.
The tenant walked into his unit and then returned outside to where Ms E was standing. The tenant was holding a wooden pole which he had obtained from insider his unit. Ms E says that the tenant walked up to her and stuck her 3 or 4 times with the pole. She managed to deflect most of the blows with her arms, but one blow struck her in the face.
Ms G, another tenant at the complex gave evidence. She said that she had seen the incident complained of by Ms E and confirmed the version of events provided by Ms E.
The Police were called. The Police investigation is ongoing.
Photos of the injuries suffered by Ms E were taken on 25 December 2025 and those photos were provided in evidence. They show bruising and grazes. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant focused substantially on events leading up to the incident.
He spoke of being assaulted by Ms E early in 2025. I am not required to make a decision on that event and what may have occurred. What is clear from the tenant’s evidence is that there was a great deal of animosity between the tenant and Ms E.
The tenant said that on 24 December 2025 he arrived home. He accepted that he had drunk two glasses of wine but did not consider that he was unable to drive.
As he walked to his unit Ms E verbally abused him for drink driving. He was upset and angered by this.
He said that he walked inside his unit to put his groceries away.
He said that Ms E “called him out.” He told her to “fuck off” . She did not do so.
The tenant picked up a shovel handle from inside his house and walked outside. He said that he swung the handle at Ms E, but did not think that the handle had hit Ms E. He said that he simply wanted her to leave him alone as he was scared. He suggested that he had used the shovel handle in self-defence and that he wanted to scare Ms E away. Having swung the shovel handle, he returned inside his unit and called the Police.
When asked why he didn’t simply remain inside his unit when he first arrived home, the tenant’s response was “I cracked. How much abuse is required before you crack. I don’t know why I did it. I just cracked. I never assaulted anyone; I was defending myself. I was being advanced on by an angry woman.” 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 Ms E has been assaulted by the tenant using a weapon. That landlord’s evidence consists of; • A statement from the complainant Ms E. • A statement from an independent witness which corroborates the evidence of Ms E. • Photos of the injuries.
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 three 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, the tenant has referred to a previous assault which he said had occurred and said that on this occasion he was defending himself.
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 the tenant. • The tenant has the opportunity to disengage by simply remaining in his unit. He could have called the Police at that time had he so wished. An alternative course of action was available to the tenant. • On his own evidence, the tenant accepts that he has gone inside and picked up a shovel handle • The tenant on his own evidence, says that he then walked outside and swung the handle at the tenant. The only conflict in evidence on this issue is that the tenant says that the handle did not hit Ms E. Ms E’s evidence and that of the supporting witness is that 3 to 4 blows were struck. That is supported by the photo evidence.
For those reasons, I find that the defence of self-defence is not available to the tenant. An alternative and obvious course of action was available to tenant, other than picking up a shovel handle, walking back outside, and swinging it at Ms E.
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-off incident with one blow stuck with a hand, 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. There has been a history of animosity between the parties. The incident required the tenant to make the conscious decision to actively go inside, collect a weapon, return outside, and swing it at Ms E. That is a very serious matter. The tenant cannot excuse his behaviour by saying that he was scared of what was being said by Ms E and that this justifies his actions. 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.
In setting the date for termination of the tenancy, I am conscious that this has been a long tenancy and that the tenant suffers from ill health. I have taken those factors into account in setting a date which is further out than might otherwise have been the case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424108 — Tenancy dispute at 18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424108 — Tenancy dispute at 18 Clent Lane, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

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