“Weighing the evidence presented by both sides, I find that the methamphetamine contamination was most likely caused during the tenancy.”
According to a recently released decision, tests from September 17, 2020, show the property was not contaminated with meth. The tenancy began the next day.
The tenants told the tribunal they moved out on April 30, 2025, and left the keys on the bench before a property manager inspected the premises on May 1, 2025.
The landlord, who also has name suppression, told the tribunal a property manager read the water meter and performed a partial inspection of the property and found it was spotless.
But she was unable to complete the inspection as she began to feel unwell, attributing the illness to a strong smell, akin to stale cigarette smoke, throughout the home.
Another property manager went to the home on May 5 to complete the final inspection but found it had been broken into.
The landlord told the tribunal the home was flooded because someone had plugged the kitchen and bathroom sinks and then left the water running.
Vandals had also spray-painted profanities and Nazi symbols on the walls. There was no sign of any utensils or equipment used to produce meth.
Following the vandalism, meth testing was undertaken at the property, which found significant meth contamination, well above the levels requiring remediation.
The tribunal follows the advice set out in a report by Sir Peter Gluckman, who was then the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, and routinely takes the view that properties require remediation when test results exceed 15μg (micrograms) per 100 square centimetres.
‘Significant’ contamination throughout the home
The All Clear test results for the property showed that the methamphetamine readings exceeded the threshold in several locations throughout the home.
The highest readings of 62 and 64μg were found in the open-plan living room and kitchen.
Three bedrooms, an ensuite, a toilet, a bathroom and the hallway also recorded readings exceeding 15μg.
The tenants denied using meth while at the property and queried the methodology used by All Clear.
The tribunal sought guidance from an All Clear specialist, who has a Bachelor of Science and 10 years’ experience in methamphetamine testing and was involved in the testing of the rental.
She told the tribunal the last two tests were performed using the methodology set out in the relevant standard and that All Clear performed two tests to ensure that all areas tested in the 2020 pre-tenancy test were also tested at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants told the tribunal that, if there was contamination, it must have occurred after they moved out and before May 5, when the vandalism was discovered.
But the specialist told the tribunal that the methamphetamine readings in the premises were consistent with heavy usage and/or manufacture and that it was unlikely that the methamphetamine contamination could have occurred during that period.
Tenants denied meth use
The tenants told the tribunal that the low readings in parts of the living area may have been due to those areas being cleaned when the premises were flooded, but Carter found that unlikely.
They also suggested that the contamination throughout the premises may have been due to residue being spread by people performing repair work after the home was damaged, disturbing residue and transferring it to other surfaces.
They claimed the damage to the premises, the removal of plasterboard wall linings and carpets and the movement of doors had compromised the test results, but the landlord told the tribunal only hard surfaces were tested, so the results were reliable.
“There are high methamphetamine readings throughout the house, including in areas such as the doorway to the ensuite in bedroom one that are not directly open to the living area, which is more consistent with use of methamphetamine throughout the house than manufacture,” Carter said.
“Use to that extent throughout the house can only have occurred during the tenancy.
“I also give weight to [the specialist]’s view that the methamphetamine readings were too high to have been caused by recent consumption and that it was unlikely that methamphetamine was manufactured in the premises post-tenancy due to the low readings in parts of the living area, where the highest readings were also present.”
The tenants claimed they were disadvantaged by the landlord not providing the All Clear methamphetamine test results within a reasonable time, which meant they were unable to perform their own testing.
Carter agreed the landlord was slow in providing the results, with the tenants being given the results only five months after they were completed.
They said this was their only opportunity to obtain contemporaneous forensic evidence, but Carter said they knew about the allegations and could have still undertaken independent testing.
Carter ruled the tenants had breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act by using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord was entitled to recover the cost of the first two meth tests, with the tenants ordered to pay $3241.31.
They were also ordered to pay $600 in exemplary damages, as well as rent arrears and water rates, which they agreed they owed the landlord.
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.