Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5433348 — Unit Titles
Decided 28 May 2026 · Published 28 May 2026 · Application 5433348
- Unit Titles
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
B King
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed.
- The merits of the claims have not been considered. Dismissal of this application does not prevent the applicant pursuing the claims through a correctly brought application.
- For that same reason an Order is made suppressing all parties’ names and identifying details.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video/ teleconference.
- The Applicant was represented by one of its directors, [The landlord’s representative].
- The tenant did not appear.
- The additional respondents, were represented by [the additional respondents’ representative].
- [Third party representative] (representing a water meter provider) also attended but was given leave not to participate as this was primarily a jurisdictional case conference. Purpose of Hearing
- This hearing was allocated as a case conference to first look at jurisdictional issues and subject to findings on that issue, to prepare the matter for hearing.
- Submissions on those matters were provided by [the additional respondents’ representative] for the conference. The Application
- The application is framed as an application to determine a dispute between a landlord and a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine such disputes. That jurisdiction is limited to disputes between a landlord and a tenant or guarantor, relating to a tenancy to which the RTA applies. 1
- It is apparent that while the apartment is rented out, there is no dispute between the applicant and its tenant.
- The dispute is between the applicant as Unit Owner and the additional respondents as parties who it is claimed have obligations to it under the Unit Titles Act (“UTA”).
- The applicant is correct that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine unit title disputes. 2 That jurisdiction extends to determining disputes arising between any of the various persons listed in s.171(2). It does not follow that any one of those named parties may pursue any claim against any other. There needs to be a relationship of obligation between the parties giving rise to a cause of action if a breach is claimed.
- The applicant is also correct that the outcome of the disputes may have implications for its relationship with its tenant, for instance by having a metered water supply so the tenant’s water usage can be accurately measured for the purposes of s.39 RTA.
- Applications made under the RTA and those made under the UTA are separately administered and case managed. They relate to different Tribunal 1 S.77(1) RTA 2 S.171 RTA jurisdictions. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to hear this application as if it had been correctly brought. A new application, properly brought under the UTA, will be required.
- If such an application is filed, it should be allocated a case conference before me to assess its readiness for hearing. Directions
- Because this application is dismissed, there is a limit to the directions the Tribunal can make in respect of an application yet to be filed.
- Because of the cost implications, I do make the following comments: a. it appears that the claims brought through this application have been considered by the Tenancy Services Compliance and Investigations team. Its report dated 4 July 2025 finds no breaches. b. [The additional respondents’ representative]’s submissions for the case conference address in detail the procedural and substantive response by the additional respondents to the claims.
- So that those obvious issues can be addressed at the outset, any new application filed by the applicant should: a. clearly identify the basis upon which a direct obligation is owed to the Unit Owner by each of the named respondents (for instance it would be unusual for the Body Corporate chairperson as opposed to the Body Corporate itself to be a party to the dispute); b. contain a clear statement about the basis on which the findings of the Investigations Team report are challenged; and c. respond to [The additional respondents’ representative]’s submissions.