How much money was awarded in case 4856282?

Property Management Limited: $1,948.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856282?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10476655-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4856282?

Property Management Limited: $1,948.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856282?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10476655-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856282 — Unit Titles

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856282 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party], [The party], and [The party] must immediately pay [The party], [The party] and 360

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856282. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Property Management Limited	$1,948.50		Property Management Limited

This is a decision for costs made on the papers.

The Tribunal delivered its substantive decision on the matter on 5 June 2024.

The tenants did not attend that hearing. The landlords were wholly successful in the proceedings.

The landlords seek an order for costs based on actual costs of $7,736.64.

The tenants were given the opportunity to make submissions on costs in writing by 17 June 2024, but have not made any submissions. Legal principles

The correct approach to costs in the Tribunal was discussed in the District Court in Body Corporate v Kazu Fumi Ikeda. 1

What will amount to a reasonable contribution to costs will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd Justice McGechan, held that: 2 ...the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution’. It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise...if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%,there is a feeling of some comfort...

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 argument lacking substance was advanced. (e) The degree of success achieved by the parties.

It is also relevant to have regard to the importance of preserving access to the Tribunal and the possible chilling effect of high costs orders. 3

I note that the landlords’ tax invoices included an amount for $2,865.40 (that counsel conveniently hand-drew). However, that invoice relates to attendances before proceedings had been commenced or prepared for. In Ikeda Judge Harrison said, “It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before commencement of the claim cannot be recovered”. 4 1 [2020] NZDC 3669. 2 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 149. For application of this decision in the Tribunal see for example, Barfoot & Thomson Limited and Lei v Cullum [2021] NZTT Remote Location 4272190, 4188182, 4209293 at [17]-[19]. See Barfoot & Thomson Limited and Lei v Cullum [2021] NZTT Remote Location 4272190, 4188182, 4209293 at [17]-[19]. 3 See discussion in Constable v Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited Costs Order [2022] NZTT 4301049, 4303368 (21 November 2022). 4 See n 2 at [19]

Therefore, I deduct $2,865.40 from the $7,736.64. That means the landlords’ actual costs related to bringing the proceedings are $4,871.24.

Having regard to the legal principles discussed above, I consider that a reasonable contribution to costs is 40 per cent of the figure referred to above.

The outcome is that the Tribunal orders the tenants to reimburse the landlords $1,948.50 for costs

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856282. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Property Management Limited	$1,948.50		Property Management Limited

Order

[The party], [The party], [The party], and [The party] must immediately pay [The party], [The party] and 360 Property Management Limited $1,948.50 for costs.

Reasons

This is a decision for costs made on the papers.
The Tribunal delivered its substantive decision on the matter on 5 June 2024.
The tenants did not attend that hearing. The landlords were wholly successful in the proceedings.
The landlords seek an order for costs based on actual costs of $7,736.64.
The tenants were given the opportunity to make submissions on costs in writing by 17 June 2024, but have not made any submissions. Legal principles
The correct approach to costs in the Tribunal was discussed in the District Court in Body Corporate v Kazu Fumi Ikeda. 1
What will amount to a reasonable contribution to costs will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd Justice McGechan, held that: 2 ...the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution’. It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise...if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%,there is a feeling of some comfort...
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 argument lacking substance was advanced. (e) The degree of success achieved by the parties.
It is also relevant to have regard to the importance of preserving access to the Tribunal and the possible chilling effect of high costs orders. 3
I note that the landlords’ tax invoices included an amount for $2,865.40 (that counsel conveniently hand-drew). However, that invoice relates to attendances before proceedings had been commenced or prepared for. In Ikeda Judge Harrison said, “It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before commencement of the claim cannot be recovered”. 4 1 [2020] NZDC 3669. 2 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 149. For application of this decision in the Tribunal see for example, Barfoot & Thomson Limited and Lei v Cullum [2021] NZTT Remote Location 4272190, 4188182, 4209293 at [17]-[19]. See Barfoot & Thomson Limited and Lei v Cullum [2021] NZTT Remote Location 4272190, 4188182, 4209293 at [17]-[19]. 3 See discussion in Constable v Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited Costs Order [2022] NZTT 4301049, 4303368 (21 November 2022). 4 See n 2 at [19]
Therefore, I deduct $2,865.40 from the $7,736.64. That means the landlords’ actual costs related to bringing the proceedings are $4,871.24.
Having regard to the legal principles discussed above, I consider that a reasonable contribution to costs is 40 per cent of the figure referred to above.
The outcome is that the Tribunal orders the tenants to reimburse the landlords $1,948.50 for costs

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856282 — Unit Titles at 80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856282 — Unit Titles at 80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions