What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5005973 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5005973?

Legal Costs: $3,529.42 awarded to tenant; Witness And Interpreters Regulations…: $57.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11971701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5005973 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5005973?

Legal Costs: $3,529.42 awarded to tenant; Witness And Interpreters Regulations…: $57.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11971701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5005973 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5005973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Legal costs		$3,529.42	Legal costs
Witness and Interpreters Regulations – witness fee to [Witness 1		$57.00	Witness and Interpreters Regulations – witness fee to [Witness 1

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5005973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Legal costs		$3,529.42	Legal costs
Witness and Interpreters Regulations – witness fee to [Witness 1		$57.00	Witness and Interpreters Regulations – witness fee to [Witness 1

Order

(COSTS AND WITNESS EXPENSES)

The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,586.42 immediately, per the table below: DescriptionTenant Legal costs$3,529.42 Witness and Interpreters Regulations – witness fee to [Witness 1]$57.00
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay the witness fee of $57.00 to [Witness 2] (as per the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023) immediately.
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay the witness fee of $57.00 to [Witness 3] (as per the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023) immediately.
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay the witness fee of $57.00 to [Witness 4] (as per the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023) immediately.
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay the witness fee of $57.00 to [Witness 5] (as per the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023) immediately.
New Zealand Backpackers Limited must pay the witness fee of $57.00 to [Witness 6] (as per the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023) immediately.

Reasons

On 14 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders in favour of the tenant for compensation of $1,040, exemplary damages of $3,500 and the application filing fee of $27.00, totalling $4,567.00. The landlord’s counterclaim was dismissed.
The tenant was represented by counsel in the proceedings.
I reserved the issue of costs for the proceedings and set a timetable for submissions.
On 23 April 2025, the landlord’s counsel filed submissions seeking costs. Reply submissions were invited and received. Counsel for the tenant later sought to add a final invoice that had been overlooked in the initial cost submissions. The landlord argued this presentment was after the timetabled calendar and should not be included.
I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers.
The general principle is costs follow the event.
As the tenant has been substantially successful in their claim against the landlord, there will be an order for costs made against the landlord.
Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel. Submission of counsel
Counsel submitted the time involved with this application was longer than usual. It required the examination of a significant number of witnesses, most of whom were summoned by the landlord. The case took two full days of hearing.
He further claimed he length of the hearing was partially aggravated by the conduct of the landlord. He believed the landlord raised several matters which should not have been raised in this Tribunal.
It was considered the case was factually and legally complex involving several witnesses as well as extensive documentary evidence. Much of the evidence and time involved was called by the landlord and so was outside the Tenant’s control.
The submission noted the landlord’s application was entirely unsuccessful. Counsel submitted that it lacked substance and amounted to a pushback against the Tenant’s application. In contrast, the Tenant was mostly successful. I submit that those areas where he was not successful were properly raised.
The Tenant was confirmed as legally aided. Counsel submitted that his status as a recipient of legal aid should not count against an award of costs as a grant of legal aid is a loan, not a gift. It has to be repaid. Response of the landlord
The landlord responded by email. The key thrust of the response is summarised below, where relevant to the cost submissions.
Late Submission Breaches Tribunal Deadline: The Tribunal’s order set 28 April 2025 as the deadline for Mr. Marshall’s costs memorandum. The late invoice, submitted after this date, is untimely. Allowing Mr. Marshall’s late invoice would undermine procedural fairness, especially as NZBP has fulfilled its primary obligation by paying the $4,567.00 award.
Legal Aid Coverage limits NZBP’s Liability: Given [The tenant/s]’s likely legal aid eligibility, NZBP should not bear costs already funded.
Disproportionate to Award: The $4,567.00 award is modest, and an additional $1,086.96 (nearly 24% of the award) is disproportionate for an informal Tribunal process. The claimed work should have been included in prior invoices, and its late addition unfairly burdens NZBP.
NZBP respectfully requests that the Tribunal reject the invoice due to its untimeliness, consistent with the rejection of NZBP’s late evidence. Alternatively, limit any costs to reasonable, timely claims, considering legal aid coverage and proportionality.

Should costs be awarded?

Counsel submitted a claim for costs of $5,191.53. The first claim of $3,850.68 appropriately removed the filing fee cost from the invoice as this has been returned already. The final (late) invoice was $1,340.85. The full costs tabled were sought.
While I acknowledge the request of the landlord that the late invoice be rejected, the purpose of the timetabling was to confirm costs and receive the respective submissions. The timetabling was tight and while I have decided to accept the last invoice. This invoice includes costs incurred that should be considered in this order and to reject it ultimately punishes the tenant who stands to have a higher legal cost than might otherwise be the case. I have accepted the final invoice, less the removal of $149.50 from the invoiced total for the post-hearing one hour claimed. As I do not consider that a reasonable cost.
Counsel referred by analogy to the scheduled costs in the District Court Rules 2014 for a category 1B proceeding: that is, costs for a District Court case of simpler complexity but normal length. The total on a 1B basis was suggested as $8,890.
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 or later).
I note the comparison and intent. The approach to cost here is one of indemnity.
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, held that: “...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...”
Counsel had submitted the length of the hearing was partially aggravated by the conduct of the landlord. He believed the landlord raised several matters which should not have been raised in this Tribunal. That ignores the fact that this Tribunal typically has self-represented parties and some consideration for any lack of procedural awareness is due. Time was further consumed by counsel responding regarding such matters.
The submission further noted the landlord’s application was entirely unsuccessful and amounted to what was considered a pushback against the Tenant’s application. I do note the landlord application was not time consuming and it did not appear to have received much focus from counsel.
The landlord responded regarding legal aid coverage and a suggestion the costs are covered. This is not the case in a civil matter as here and I accept the landlord’s submission regarding this matter.
The landlord also responded that the $4,567.00 award was modest, and the legal costs disproportionate for an “informal Tribunal process”. It believed the late invoice should have been included prior and its late addition unfairly burdens NZBP. I am of the opinion a rejection of the invoice for costs incurred in this hearing would be most unfair on the tenant.
While the landlord has termed this an “informal” process, the approach of the landlord has been formal. This extended to the use of multiple formal witness summons, after a more informal process (and reimbursement for their time) had been previously discussed at the initial case conference.
I am of the view that the time and effort involved in hearing both applications was extended due to the landlord’s approach. A number of witnesses were called seemingly more with an intent to paint a picture of the tenant in such a way to retrospectively justify what was found to be a termination without grounds.
I also note the early attempt before this application of counsel, on behalf on the tenant, to engage with the landlord on what appear reasonable to agree terms to resolve the dispute. The landlord’s umbrage at that engagement and lack of engagement was unfortunate (and in my view unfounded). The resultant costs sought might have been avoided.
In David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ 162 the High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.
Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance.
Having considered the above factors, I consider an award of 70% of indemnity costs should be made.
I award costs of $3,529.42. Witness fees
The landlord formally summoned seven witnesses as provided for under s 98 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. One was already present to be called by the tenant.
Section 98 sub-sections of relevance are: (4) Every witness attending a hearing of the Tribunal pursuant to a witness summons shall be entitled to a sum for that witness’s travelling allowances, travelling expenses, and fees at the rate for the time being prescribed, except that, in any particular case, the Tribunal may disallow the whole or any part of that sum if it considers it just to do so. (5) The allowances, travelling expenses, and fees payable to a witness pursuant to subsection (4) shall be paid by such party or parties to the proceedings as the Tribunal shall order or, if the Tribunal so decides, shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
The allowance is set by the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023. This fee is less than the amount the landlord had earlier indicated it wanted to compensate the witnesses for their time. Such an intention was commendable and acceptable to counsel (the concern being any such payment might be construed as an incentive that might influence a witness).
I can only make an award per the appropriate regulations. I have adopted the three-hour fee of $50.00 and the daily meal allowance of $7.00 to total an allowance of $57.00 per witness.
I consider it appropriate in this instance to order the allowances be paid by the summonsing landlord.
The order for the allowances is made to each individual with the exception of [Witness 1]. Given his tenancy has ended, I have ordered his allowance paid to the tenant who I am entrusting to forward to [Witness 1], anticipating the tenant will know how to contact him.
The remaining witnesses should be known to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005973 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005973 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions