What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794003 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable

How much money was awarded in case 4794003?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794003?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515332-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794003 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable

How much money was awarded in case 4794003?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794003?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515332-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Tuahiwi Road, Tuahiwi, RD 1, Kaiapoi 7691 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4794003 — Unit Titles

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable contribution to the Landlord’s costs on this application.

Reasons

Mr Andrews’ application was scheduled for hearing on 1 May 2024. He withdrew the application on 30 April 2024.
Ms Ali has applied for costs on the withdrawal. She seeks full indemnity costs of $14,000. Mr Hood has submitted 3 invoices in respect the claim for costs, but no time records. The invoices have nominal narrations. There is no clear breakdown of time spent.
The Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where: the Tribunal believes the claim is frivolous or vexatious, any of the parties are represented by a lawyer, the claim should have been settled at mediation, or the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(2),(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009. I consider that these proceedings would fall into category 1A for costs purposes. Background
Mr Andrews submitted an application to the Tribunal on 27 January 2024. On its face, his claim was for more than $6,000, so the landlord was entitled to representation.
The application was scheduled for hearing on 20 March 2024. The Landlord applied for an adjournment (the grounds were unrelated to the application).
The adjournment was granted, and the Tribunal issued case management directions. Those directions made some observations about the way in which Mr Andrews’ claim had been presented and quantified. This is ostensibly a lay Tribunal. The directions issued on 20 March 2024 were to provide guidance of the Tribunal’s role and how it approaches assessment of a claim. The comments should not be construed as an indication of likely success, by either party. The adjudicator had not heard from the parties.
The Landlord made a without prejudice offer save as to costs following the 20 March order. The offer was on the basis that the tenant would withdraw its claim, with no issue as to costs. It was rejected.
Mr Andrews later made his own offer to withdraw the application with no issue as to costs, on 16 April 2024. That offer was also rejected, and the landlord sought costs of $6,000 on 18 April 2024.
The landlord provided submissions in response to the claims on 4 April and evidence on 24 April 2024.
The tenant withdrew his claim on 29 April 2024. The landlord’s counsel argues the late withdrawal is an indication that Mr Andrews never attempted to prosecute his claim.
Mr Andrews says that he believes that his claims had merit, but that he was withdrew the claims because of the involvement of Counsel and the way in which Counsel responded to and approached the claims. Costs Assessment
As Counsel for the landlord notes, the RTA does not make provision for costs where one party discontinues (or withdraws) its claim. Such claims are rare in this Tribunal.
The authority Counsel referred to 1 was an application under the Unit Titles Act (where representation is far more common than in tenancy cases). However, I 1 Waterson v Body Corporate 307161 [2022] NZTT Hutt Valley 9025482 am persuaded that the Tribunal can award costs on a discontinuance or withdrawal for the reasons set out in the Waterson decision.
As a general rule, when considering costs on discontinuance, the adjudicating body will not consider the merits or competing contentions. The claims were withdrawn, so there is no finding of liability or proper assessment of the claims.
However, I have reviewed the file in order to consider the claim for indemnity costs. The claim and the way it was presented was not unusual or inconsistent with other claims the Tribunal receives. This is a lay Tribunal, formal rules of pleading do not apply. The High Court has confirmed that Tenancy Tribunal proceedings should be ‘simple’, and that there are expectations and provisions in the RTA to achieve that. See Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033.
Mr Andrews’ claims were apparent from the application form and documents submitted.
I cannot conclude that the claims were completely without merit or were vexatious. I accept the tenant submission that the complexity applied to the proceeding by Counsel and the approach of Counsel led to the withdrawal, rather than any acceptance that his claim would not succeed.
Both parties made offers which were rejected, within a short time before the hearing. I am not persuaded that an award of indemnity costs is warranted.
Rule 15.20 of the District Court Rules states: Unless the defendant otherwise agrees or the court otherwise orders, a plaintiff who discontinues a proceeding against a defendant must pay costs to the defendant of and incidental to the proceeding up to and including the discontinuance.
The Landlord submitted three invoices. One is for $3,630.00 and relates to attendances after 30 April 2024 (so after the application was withdrawn). It is not clear that that invoice would be relevant to an assessment of costs “up to and including the discontinuance”.
The other two total $12,115.00 but only have nominal narrations and no time records. It is impossible to know the precise dates the costs were incurred and to what extent they relate to the proceeding. Counsel’s submission states that the landlord has claimed less than the invoices “due to the landlord making reasonable concessions and accounting for costs not directly related to these proceedings.” However, he has not put forward the underlying evidence to allow the Tribunal to assess the veracity of that submission.
For the reasons set out above, the appropriate approach to costs in this case is to consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009. French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV- 2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012).
Neither party provided me with an assessment of what scale costs in the District Court might have been.
As already noted, I consider this application to be a 1A proceeding. It is well within the usual range of cases presented to this Tribunal, and in the format we receive them.
Applying scale costs, on a discontinuance, I consider it appropriate to allow the landlord items 2 (or 2A) for responding to the claim, and items 16.3 and 16.4 for preparation when a hearing does not proceed. Refer Schedule 4 – Time Allocations. That would result in a time allocation of 2.75 days under category A, and a total costs award of $3,492.50.
I also have regard to the fact that the allocations are not directly applicable to the Tribunal, given its more simple procedure. I have taken into account the total costs incurred (albeit without detailed narration and time records).
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable contribution to the Landlord’s costs on this application.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable contribution to the Landlord’s costs on this application.

Reasons

Mr Andrews’ application was scheduled for hearing on 1 May 2024. He withdrew the application on 30 April 2024.
Ms Ali has applied for costs on the withdrawal. She seeks full indemnity costs of $14,000. Mr Hood has submitted 3 invoices in respect the claim for costs, but no time records. The invoices have nominal narrations. There is no clear breakdown of time spent.
The Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where: the Tribunal believes the claim is frivolous or vexatious, any of the parties are represented by a lawyer, the claim should have been settled at mediation, or the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(2),(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009. I consider that these proceedings would fall into category 1A for costs purposes. Background
Mr Andrews submitted an application to the Tribunal on 27 January 2024. On its face, his claim was for more than $6,000, so the landlord was entitled to representation.
The application was scheduled for hearing on 20 March 2024. The Landlord applied for an adjournment (the grounds were unrelated to the application).
The adjournment was granted, and the Tribunal issued case management directions. Those directions made some observations about the way in which Mr Andrews’ claim had been presented and quantified. This is ostensibly a lay Tribunal. The directions issued on 20 March 2024 were to provide guidance of the Tribunal’s role and how it approaches assessment of a claim. The comments should not be construed as an indication of likely success, by either party. The adjudicator had not heard from the parties.
The Landlord made a without prejudice offer save as to costs following the 20 March order. The offer was on the basis that the tenant would withdraw its claim, with no issue as to costs. It was rejected.
Mr Andrews later made his own offer to withdraw the application with no issue as to costs, on 16 April 2024. That offer was also rejected, and the landlord sought costs of $6,000 on 18 April 2024.
The landlord provided submissions in response to the claims on 4 April and evidence on 24 April 2024.
The tenant withdrew his claim on 29 April 2024. The landlord’s counsel argues the late withdrawal is an indication that Mr Andrews never attempted to prosecute his claim.
Mr Andrews says that he believes that his claims had merit, but that he was withdrew the claims because of the involvement of Counsel and the way in which Counsel responded to and approached the claims. Costs Assessment
As Counsel for the landlord notes, the RTA does not make provision for costs where one party discontinues (or withdraws) its claim. Such claims are rare in this Tribunal.
The authority Counsel referred to 1 was an application under the Unit Titles Act (where representation is far more common than in tenancy cases). However, I 1 Waterson v Body Corporate 307161 [2022] NZTT Hutt Valley 9025482 am persuaded that the Tribunal can award costs on a discontinuance or withdrawal for the reasons set out in the Waterson decision.
As a general rule, when considering costs on discontinuance, the adjudicating body will not consider the merits or competing contentions. The claims were withdrawn, so there is no finding of liability or proper assessment of the claims.
However, I have reviewed the file in order to consider the claim for indemnity costs. The claim and the way it was presented was not unusual or inconsistent with other claims the Tribunal receives. This is a lay Tribunal, formal rules of pleading do not apply. The High Court has confirmed that Tenancy Tribunal proceedings should be ‘simple’, and that there are expectations and provisions in the RTA to achieve that. See Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033.
Mr Andrews’ claims were apparent from the application form and documents submitted.
I cannot conclude that the claims were completely without merit or were vexatious. I accept the tenant submission that the complexity applied to the proceeding by Counsel and the approach of Counsel led to the withdrawal, rather than any acceptance that his claim would not succeed.
Both parties made offers which were rejected, within a short time before the hearing. I am not persuaded that an award of indemnity costs is warranted.
Rule 15.20 of the District Court Rules states: Unless the defendant otherwise agrees or the court otherwise orders, a plaintiff who discontinues a proceeding against a defendant must pay costs to the defendant of and incidental to the proceeding up to and including the discontinuance.
The Landlord submitted three invoices. One is for $3,630.00 and relates to attendances after 30 April 2024 (so after the application was withdrawn). It is not clear that that invoice would be relevant to an assessment of costs “up to and including the discontinuance”.
The other two total $12,115.00 but only have nominal narrations and no time records. It is impossible to know the precise dates the costs were incurred and to what extent they relate to the proceeding. Counsel’s submission states that the landlord has claimed less than the invoices “due to the landlord making reasonable concessions and accounting for costs not directly related to these proceedings.” However, he has not put forward the underlying evidence to allow the Tribunal to assess the veracity of that submission.
For the reasons set out above, the appropriate approach to costs in this case is to consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009. French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV- 2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012).
Neither party provided me with an assessment of what scale costs in the District Court might have been.
As already noted, I consider this application to be a 1A proceeding. It is well within the usual range of cases presented to this Tribunal, and in the format we receive them.
Applying scale costs, on a discontinuance, I consider it appropriate to allow the landlord items 2 (or 2A) for responding to the claim, and items 16.3 and 16.4 for preparation when a hearing does not proceed. Refer Schedule 4 – Time Allocations. That would result in a time allocation of 2.75 days under category A, and a total costs award of $3,492.50.
I also have regard to the fact that the allocations are not directly applicable to the Tribunal, given its more simple procedure. I have taken into account the total costs incurred (albeit without detailed narration and time records).
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $4,000.00 as a reasonable contribution to the Landlord’s costs on this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794003 — Unit Titles at 76 Tuahiwi Road, Tuahiwi, RD 1, Kaiapoi 7691

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794003 — Unit Titles at 76 Tuahiwi Road, Tuahiwi, RD 1, Kaiapoi 7691

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions