What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4361906 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4361906?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4361906?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4361906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8736027-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4361906 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4361906?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4361906?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4361906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8736027-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4361906 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by [Lawyer], the lawyer for the tenant. [Lawyer] attended a hearing set down for a day.
The tenant was successful in a claim for compensation. I ordered the landlord pay $1042.86 for loss of amenity, as well as reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee and the refund of the bond.
The tenant was not successful in the claims for exemplary damages, breaches relating to the tenancy agreement, the reduction of rent, the refund of money spent during the tenancy, breach of quiet enjoyment, and for breaches to the Healthy Homes Standards.
[Lawyer] was allowed to make an application for costs. I received copies of two invoices, for taking instructions and preparing for the hearing in the amount of $7,245, and for hearing preparation and representation (all day) in the amount of $4,500. These were provided to me on 15 February 2023 after requests by the registry for copies. I did not receive any submissions from [Lawyer].
I assume the landlord received the invoices from [Lawyer] some time before I did. She replied by written submissions dated 27 January 2023. The landlord’s position on costs
The landlord submitted it was fair and reasonable the tenant should cover his own legal costs. Her submission included – • That the tenant originally claimed $100,000 and he was awarded only 1% of this • That the tenant should only be able to claim costs for the hearing and not for hearing preparation • The hourly rate is too high and an appropriate hourly rate is the $139 allowed for legal aid in a tribunal • The amount of time taken to prepare for the hearing was 18 hours, which was excessive. Decision
Generally costs are not awarded in the Tribunal, except in limited circumstances. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 – RTA - relates to costs and confirms that costs may be ordered when any party was presented by lawyers, as is the case here.
Section 102(3) sets out that an order may be made that one party pay the other party the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings. It is unusual for a Tribunal or Court in New Zealand to award full indemnity costs against the losing party.
What is considered to be ‘reasonable costs’ will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan, in his reserved costs decision confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs -the length of the hearing, the sum of money involved, the legal and factual complexity, whether argument lacking substance was advanced, and the degree of success achieved by the parties.
Similarly in the judgment of David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms and Engineering Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 PRNZ 162, Tompkins J considered a costs issue where the party was represented, and held: In addition to the length of the hearing, matters such as the amount of money involved, the importance either to the parties or generally of the issues, monetary or non monetary, the legal and factual complexities, the amount of time required for effective preparation, the number and complexity of interlocutory applications and the likely or actual solicitor and client costs incurred, may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
The hearing in this case took about 8 hours. The application was not complex legally. There were lots of documents, but otherwise the facts were straightforward. This type of hearing is carried out every day in the Tribunal without legal representation. [Lawyer] was not involved in the prehearing case conference. The tenant’s claim was to the limit of the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction of $100,000. The tenant was only moderately successful. The landlord did not file an application or delay proceedings and her defence of the tenant’s claim was done in an efficient way.
Considering the above, I am not persuaded I should make an order for costs in favour of the tenant. This means I do not need to consider if the costs claimed were reasonable.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by [Lawyer], the lawyer for the tenant. [Lawyer] attended a hearing set down for a day.
The tenant was successful in a claim for compensation. I ordered the landlord pay $1042.86 for loss of amenity, as well as reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee and the refund of the bond.
The tenant was not successful in the claims for exemplary damages, breaches relating to the tenancy agreement, the reduction of rent, the refund of money spent during the tenancy, breach of quiet enjoyment, and for breaches to the Healthy Homes Standards.
[Lawyer] was allowed to make an application for costs. I received copies of two invoices, for taking instructions and preparing for the hearing in the amount of $7,245, and for hearing preparation and representation (all day) in the amount of $4,500. These were provided to me on 15 February 2023 after requests by the registry for copies. I did not receive any submissions from [Lawyer].
I assume the landlord received the invoices from [Lawyer] some time before I did. She replied by written submissions dated 27 January 2023. The landlord’s position on costs
The landlord submitted it was fair and reasonable the tenant should cover his own legal costs. Her submission included – • That the tenant originally claimed $100,000 and he was awarded only 1% of this • That the tenant should only be able to claim costs for the hearing and not for hearing preparation • The hourly rate is too high and an appropriate hourly rate is the $139 allowed for legal aid in a tribunal • The amount of time taken to prepare for the hearing was 18 hours, which was excessive. Decision
Generally costs are not awarded in the Tribunal, except in limited circumstances. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 – RTA - relates to costs and confirms that costs may be ordered when any party was presented by lawyers, as is the case here.
Section 102(3) sets out that an order may be made that one party pay the other party the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings. It is unusual for a Tribunal or Court in New Zealand to award full indemnity costs against the losing party.
What is considered to be ‘reasonable costs’ will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan, in his reserved costs decision confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs -the length of the hearing, the sum of money involved, the legal and factual complexity, whether argument lacking substance was advanced, and the degree of success achieved by the parties.
Similarly in the judgment of David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms and Engineering Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 PRNZ 162, Tompkins J considered a costs issue where the party was represented, and held: In addition to the length of the hearing, matters such as the amount of money involved, the importance either to the parties or generally of the issues, monetary or non monetary, the legal and factual complexities, the amount of time required for effective preparation, the number and complexity of interlocutory applications and the likely or actual solicitor and client costs incurred, may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
The hearing in this case took about 8 hours. The application was not complex legally. There were lots of documents, but otherwise the facts were straightforward. This type of hearing is carried out every day in the Tribunal without legal representation. [Lawyer] was not involved in the prehearing case conference. The tenant’s claim was to the limit of the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction of $100,000. The tenant was only moderately successful. The landlord did not file an application or delay proceedings and her defence of the tenant’s claim was done in an efficient way.
Considering the above, I am not persuaded I should make an order for costs in favour of the tenant. This means I do not need to consider if the costs claimed were reasonable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4361906 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4361906 — Healthy homes

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