Nisbet v Landlord

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE LANDLORD ARE SUPRESSED BY AN ORDER MADE IN [2024] NZTT 4926295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-333

[2025] NZHC 2467

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

BETWEEN

DAVINA ANNA MARIE NISBET

Appellant

AND

LANDLORD

Respondent

Hearing:

18 August 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

N P Tetzlaff for Respondent

Judgment:

27 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal)

[1]                 The appellant, Davina Nisbet, is the tenant of a residential property in Porirua (the property). The respondent is the landlord of that property.

[2]                 On 23 August 2024 the Tenancy Tribunal (Tribunal) granted an application by the respondent to terminate Ms Nisbet’s tenancy of the property, on the basis that the property was uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination.1 It also ordered the respondent to pay Ms Nisbet $3,390 as a rent abatement, equivalent to the roughly

1      [Landlord] v Nisbet [2024] NZTT 4926295 [Tribunal decision].

NISBET v LANDLORD [2025] NZHC 2467 [27 August 2025]

four months she had been living in an unsafe home, since the respondent became aware of the methamphetamine contamination.

[3]                 Ms Nisbet appealed. In his decision of 23 April 2025, Judge Kelly upheld the Tribunal’s order terminating Ms Nisbet’s tenancy. He held that the tenancy was properly terminated by the Tribunal under s 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). He ordered her to vacate the property by 21 May 2025.2

[4]                 Ms Nisbet now appeals the District Court decision. A stay of enforcement is in operation pending the outcome of the appeal.3 Ms Nisbet remains in occupation of the tenancy and is paying rent.

The Tenancy Tribunal’s decision

[5]                 The respondent applied to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate Ms Nisbet’s tenancy on three grounds.

[6]                 The first  ground was that  Ms Nisbet  had breached her  obligations under     s 42(1)(a) of the Act and cl 29 of the tenancy agreement not to make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord. The respondent argued Ms Nisbet had breached her obligations by:4

a.Erecting a fence without its written consent;

b.Erecting a terraced garden that required significant modification to the premises such as the building of a retaining wall, installing electrical wiring and building four terraces of boxing for the gardens;

c.Renovated the bathroom (removing the bathtub and installing a spa bath and renovating the shower and tiling);

d.Installing outdoor sensor lighting;

e.Installing cameras;

f.Creating an unconsented room in the basement and cutting a hole in the hallway to create an internal access to the basement; and

2      Nisbet v [Landlord] [2025] NZDC 7893 [DC decision].

3      Nisbet v [Landlord] HC Wellington CIV-2025-485-333, 22 May 2025 (Minute of Gwyn J).

4      Tribunal decision, above n 1, at [9].

g.Installing and modifying [illegal] electrical wiring inside the premise.

[7]…