What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882880 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4882880?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882880?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11504625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882880 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4882880?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882880?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11504625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882880 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jin Sun and Yong Cong must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately.
The tenants’ application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

On 22 November 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision awarding the tenants, Ms Sun and Mr Cong, $150.00 for exemplary damages and dismissing their other claims. I reserved my decision on costs and invited counsel for each party to provide written submissions on costs on a timetable I set.
The tenants, through their solicitor Ms Sun, subsequently applied for a rehearing. The landlord’s solicitor provided written submissions disputing the application. The application was determined on the papers and in a decision dated 10 December 2024 the application was dismissed and the timetable for written submissions on costs was extended.
Both parties have provided written submissions. Counsel for the tenants submitted that costs should lie where they fall but if the Tribunal takes a different view, they seek costs totalling $1,910.00 for the rehearing application. Counsel for the tenants did not seek costs for the substantive application.
Counsel for the landlord referred to the District Court scale of costs and to relevant case law in support of the costs submissions made. Counsel has submitted that costs should lie at the higher end and claims the sum of $10,670.45, being 70% of actual costs ($15,243.50). Counsel for the landlord also sought additional costs of $517.50 being the actual costs incurred for preparation of submissions in relation to the rehearing application.
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in French v Ryan CIV-2012-004-711, 29 November 2012 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, conduct of the parties, nature of the defence, the degree of success, arguments advanced which lacked substance, and any other matters relevant to the case.
McGechan J stated that the well-established principle is that costs are to be quantified on the basis of a ‘reasonable contribution’ and that a reasonable contribution is not a mere gesture nor is it payment in full. His Honour noted that in many cases a contribution of around 60% of actual costs had been considered reasonable but that a ‘reasonable contribution’ that fell within the range of 40% to 70% would provide “a feeling of some comfort.”
In French v Ryan the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules. Costs on the substantive claim
I do not consider that this is an appropriate case for costs to lie where they fall as submitted by counsel for the tenants. The tenants have been substantially unsuccessful in their claims (having only succeeded in one). However, I also consider that the contribution claimed by the landlord (70%) is too high in this case.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I consider that a 55% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case, particularly when taking into account the costs ($7,449.00) that would have been awarded under the category 2B in the District Court Rules 2014.
The hearing was not particularly long: it was set for a full day and took most of that day, plus an earlier short telephone directions hearing. I accept that it was unclear as to the nature and substance of the tenants’ initial claim and that it appeared to be for a substantial sum (over $100,000). However, after the directions hearing counsel for the tenants clarified the claims and reduced sum claimed by a substantial amount.
I also accept that there were a number of claims made by the tenants and the issues involved were clearly important to both parties. There was also complexity in some of the legal matters raised and the tenants had provided a considerable number of documents in support. Also relevant in my view is that the landlord made attempts to resolve the claims prior to the hearing but the tenants refused the offers made.
Finally, while there was no application for costs by the tenants with respect to the substantive application I have taken into account, when assessing a reasonable contribution to the landlord’s costs, that the tenants were successful in one of their claims (failure by the landlord to provide a copy of Healthy Homes information when requested).
I therefore find the tenants liable to pay costs of $8,383.92 for the substantive proceedings. While it is more than the scale costs of $7,449.00, I consider the increase is justified for the reasons given above. Costs on the rehearing claim
The tenants were wholly unsuccessful in their rehearing application. Their claim for costs is therefore dismissed.
Taking onto account the factors in Holden, as set out above, and in particular that there were no substantive grounds provided that could support a rehearing, I consider a contribution of 70% to costs claimed by the landlord for the rehearing is fair and reasonable.
I therefore find the tenants liable to pay costs of $362.25 for the rehearing claim. Suppression
The landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 22 November 2024 (under this application

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jin Sun and Yong Cong must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately.
The tenants’ application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

On 22 November 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision awarding the tenants, Ms Sun and Mr Cong, $150.00 for exemplary damages and dismissing their other claims. I reserved my decision on costs and invited counsel for each party to provide written submissions on costs on a timetable I set.
The tenants, through their solicitor Ms Sun, subsequently applied for a rehearing. The landlord’s solicitor provided written submissions disputing the application. The application was determined on the papers and in a decision dated 10 December 2024 the application was dismissed and the timetable for written submissions on costs was extended.
Both parties have provided written submissions. Counsel for the tenants submitted that costs should lie where they fall but if the Tribunal takes a different view, they seek costs totalling $1,910.00 for the rehearing application. Counsel for the tenants did not seek costs for the substantive application.
Counsel for the landlord referred to the District Court scale of costs and to relevant case law in support of the costs submissions made. Counsel has submitted that costs should lie at the higher end and claims the sum of $10,670.45, being 70% of actual costs ($15,243.50). Counsel for the landlord also sought additional costs of $517.50 being the actual costs incurred for preparation of submissions in relation to the rehearing application.
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in French v Ryan CIV-2012-004-711, 29 November 2012 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, conduct of the parties, nature of the defence, the degree of success, arguments advanced which lacked substance, and any other matters relevant to the case.
McGechan J stated that the well-established principle is that costs are to be quantified on the basis of a ‘reasonable contribution’ and that a reasonable contribution is not a mere gesture nor is it payment in full. His Honour noted that in many cases a contribution of around 60% of actual costs had been considered reasonable but that a ‘reasonable contribution’ that fell within the range of 40% to 70% would provide “a feeling of some comfort.”
In French v Ryan the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules. Costs on the substantive claim
I do not consider that this is an appropriate case for costs to lie where they fall as submitted by counsel for the tenants. The tenants have been substantially unsuccessful in their claims (having only succeeded in one). However, I also consider that the contribution claimed by the landlord (70%) is too high in this case.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I consider that a 55% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case, particularly when taking into account the costs ($7,449.00) that would have been awarded under the category 2B in the District Court Rules 2014.
The hearing was not particularly long: it was set for a full day and took most of that day, plus an earlier short telephone directions hearing. I accept that it was unclear as to the nature and substance of the tenants’ initial claim and that it appeared to be for a substantial sum (over $100,000). However, after the directions hearing counsel for the tenants clarified the claims and reduced sum claimed by a substantial amount.
I also accept that there were a number of claims made by the tenants and the issues involved were clearly important to both parties. There was also complexity in some of the legal matters raised and the tenants had provided a considerable number of documents in support. Also relevant in my view is that the landlord made attempts to resolve the claims prior to the hearing but the tenants refused the offers made.
Finally, while there was no application for costs by the tenants with respect to the substantive application I have taken into account, when assessing a reasonable contribution to the landlord’s costs, that the tenants were successful in one of their claims (failure by the landlord to provide a copy of Healthy Homes information when requested).
I therefore find the tenants liable to pay costs of $8,383.92 for the substantive proceedings. While it is more than the scale costs of $7,449.00, I consider the increase is justified for the reasons given above. Costs on the rehearing claim
The tenants were wholly unsuccessful in their rehearing application. Their claim for costs is therefore dismissed.
Taking onto account the factors in Holden, as set out above, and in particular that there were no substantive grounds provided that could support a rehearing, I consider a contribution of 70% to costs claimed by the landlord for the rehearing is fair and reasonable.
I therefore find the tenants liable to pay costs of $362.25 for the rehearing claim. Suppression
The landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 22 November 2024 (under this application

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882880 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882880 — 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