What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816823 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 4816823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816823?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10361481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816823 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 4816823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816823?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10361481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4816823 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” (my emphasis) where “any of the parties was represented by counsel”. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “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.

In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs: a. The length of the hearing. b. The sum of money involved. c. The legal and factual complexity. d. Whether the argument lacking substance was advanced, and e. The degree of success achieved by the parties.

The landlord seeks costs in accordance with the 2B scale set out in the District Court Rules 2016. In French v Ryan DC AK CIV-2012-004-000711 [29 November 2012], Judge Taumaunu noted that while the District Court Rules do not strictly apply to Tribunal proceedings, they can provide guidance.

The tenant opposes costs, essentially, on the basis of fairness and “equity of arms” noting that he felt prejudiced when faced by the landlord and 3 lawyers.

I accept the tenant’s submission that the attendance of multiple lawyers went beyond what was necessary, and that the total costs sought are significant, taking into account the nature of the claim.

There is a protracted background to this dispute, that goes well beyond the proceeding heard before me on 15 May 2024. That dispute will be the subject of an appeal hearing in the District Court.

I am conscious of the landlord’s health situation, which impacted her decision to appoint a lawyer, and I accept that the quantum of the landlord’s claim was such that she was entitled to representation.

That said, the proceeding before me was an application for possession, rent arrears, and unpaid water rates. With respect to both parties, this was a very straight forward, routine, application. The Tribunal deals with applications of this nature advanced by unrepresented parties on a daily basis.

While it is clear that significant effort had gone into the affidavit and submissions filed, they both went well beyond the scope required for this hearing.

Considering the nature and complexity of the proceeding, I consider that the 1A scale is more appropriate. Further, I consider this matter best fits the description of a “short trial” as described in the District Court Rules 2016.

Taking into account this matter was set for a half day hearing, and allowing for some preparation, I consider that $1,200.00 is a reasonable contribution to the landlord’s costs.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Daniel Millier must pay [The landlord/s] $1,200.00 immediately.

Reasons

Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” (my emphasis) where “any of the parties was represented by counsel”. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “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.
In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs: a. The length of the hearing. b. The sum of money involved. c. The legal and factual complexity. d. Whether the argument lacking substance was advanced, and e. The degree of success achieved by the parties.
The landlord seeks costs in accordance with the 2B scale set out in the District Court Rules 2016. In French v Ryan DC AK CIV-2012-004-000711 [29 November 2012], Judge Taumaunu noted that while the District Court Rules do not strictly apply to Tribunal proceedings, they can provide guidance.
The tenant opposes costs, essentially, on the basis of fairness and “equity of arms” noting that he felt prejudiced when faced by the landlord and 3 lawyers.
I accept the tenant’s submission that the attendance of multiple lawyers went beyond what was necessary, and that the total costs sought are significant, taking into account the nature of the claim.
There is a protracted background to this dispute, that goes well beyond the proceeding heard before me on 15 May 2024. That dispute will be the subject of an appeal hearing in the District Court.
I am conscious of the landlord’s health situation, which impacted her decision to appoint a lawyer, and I accept that the quantum of the landlord’s claim was such that she was entitled to representation.
That said, the proceeding before me was an application for possession, rent arrears, and unpaid water rates. With respect to both parties, this was a very straight forward, routine, application. The Tribunal deals with applications of this nature advanced by unrepresented parties on a daily basis.
While it is clear that significant effort had gone into the affidavit and submissions filed, they both went well beyond the scope required for this hearing.
Considering the nature and complexity of the proceeding, I consider that the 1A scale is more appropriate. Further, I consider this matter best fits the description of a “short trial” as described in the District Court Rules 2016.
Taking into account this matter was set for a half day hearing, and allowing for some preparation, I consider that $1,200.00 is a reasonable contribution to the landlord’s costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816823 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816823 — Rent arrears

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