What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9036581?

The tribunal order states: Gordon Freeman must pay Body Corporate 71725 $6,822.00 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 9036581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9036581?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9036581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10135752-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9036581?

The tribunal order states: Gordon Freeman must pay Body Corporate 71725 $6,822.00 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 9036581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9036581?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9036581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10135752-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Akaroa, Akaroa Tenancy Tribunal Case 9036581 — Leaks

Order

Gordon Freeman must pay Body Corporate 71725 $6,822.00 immediately, being legal costs awarded on the successful application.
The Tribunal declines to make further orders, including work orders, as the matter is now at appeal.

Reasons

Background

On 23 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the unit owner Mr Freeman to pay the body corporate $14,376.00 comprising repair costs to his unit, Unit 62, and the Tribunal filing fee.
The Tribunal invited submissions on costs from counsel for the parties. Each provided submissions some time ago.
Counsel for the body corporate has sought costs of $12,211.15 being full reimbursement of the legal costs incurred by the body corporate.
Counsel for Mr Freeman has submitted that costs should lie where they fall, or there should be a deduction for costs incurred before the body corporate resolved to instruct counsel to act. Law
Section 102(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award costs where a party is represented by counsel.
Costs follow the event. The successful party (in this case, the body corporate) can properly seek costs.
The decision of the District Court in Body Corporate 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 provides guidance about awarding costs.
In that case 66% of the actual costs were awarded. The general range is between 40 to 70%.
At paragraph 19 of the decision, the Court said: It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before commencement of the claim cannot be recovered, neither can post hearing attendances, by which time the Tribunal will be functus officio, having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make a costs order.

What costs should be awarded?

This application was complicated. There were in fact two applications, the first in September 2021, and the second in June 2022.
Counsel for the body corporate has included two invoices before the first application was made (for $1,717.40 and $747.50) and those amounts must be excluded applying the guidance in Ikeda. So, the body corporate’s claimable costs total $9,746.25.
In the Tribunal’s order I mentioned the approach taken by Mr Freeman was a technical one; he sought an adjournment because he considered that processes must be strictly followed.
I accepted counsel for the body corporate’s analysis regarding the substantive issue which I thought was straight forward and correct.
And I noted (again) the dysfunction in this body corporate, with repeated applications largely the result of the actions by Mr Freeman and one other unit owner who together hold a majority interest. I recently heard another application for the same unit title development where Mr Freeman was again a party.
This is a case where I consider an award of costs at the higher end to be appropriate. I award the body corporate 70% of the (reduced) claim for costs, an amount of $6,822.00. The deferred work order
In my decision I deferred making a work order for the repair of windows in Mr Freeman’s unit(s) which affects at least one unit not owned by him.
I took Mr Freeman at his word that he had had the leaks assessed, his builders had done some remedial work, and he would action any continuing problem.
The body corporate has requested that I now make a work order for Mr Freeman to repair his windows as the leaking into another unit owner’s unit from his windows remains a problem.
Ordinarily, I would have made that work order. However, as the matter is now at appeal, I am reluctant to make further orders. Potentially, the Tribunal’s order could conflict with the Court’s order about the same issue, so it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to make a work order now.
The issue of a work order is before the Court on appeal even though the Tribunal deferred making an order. Either the Court will make an order as part of the appeal, or not, or it will remit that issue back to the Tribunal. Result
Mr Freeman will pay Body Corporate 71725 legal costs of $6,822.00. A claim for interest included in counsel’s submissions is premature, the order only now made.
The Tribunal apologises for the delay in issuing this costs order.

Order

Gordon Freeman must pay Body Corporate 71725 $6,822.00 immediately, being legal costs awarded on the successful application.
The Tribunal declines to make further orders, including work orders, as the matter is now at appeal.

Reasons

Background

On 23 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the unit owner Mr Freeman to pay the body corporate $14,376.00 comprising repair costs to his unit, Unit 62, and the Tribunal filing fee.
The Tribunal invited submissions on costs from counsel for the parties. Each provided submissions some time ago.
Counsel for the body corporate has sought costs of $12,211.15 being full reimbursement of the legal costs incurred by the body corporate.
Counsel for Mr Freeman has submitted that costs should lie where they fall, or there should be a deduction for costs incurred before the body corporate resolved to instruct counsel to act. Law
Section 102(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award costs where a party is represented by counsel.
Costs follow the event. The successful party (in this case, the body corporate) can properly seek costs.
The decision of the District Court in Body Corporate 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 provides guidance about awarding costs.
In that case 66% of the actual costs were awarded. The general range is between 40 to 70%.
At paragraph 19 of the decision, the Court said: It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before commencement of the claim cannot be recovered, neither can post hearing attendances, by which time the Tribunal will be functus officio, having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make a costs order.

What costs should be awarded?

This application was complicated. There were in fact two applications, the first in September 2021, and the second in June 2022.
Counsel for the body corporate has included two invoices before the first application was made (for $1,717.40 and $747.50) and those amounts must be excluded applying the guidance in Ikeda. So, the body corporate’s claimable costs total $9,746.25.
In the Tribunal’s order I mentioned the approach taken by Mr Freeman was a technical one; he sought an adjournment because he considered that processes must be strictly followed.
I accepted counsel for the body corporate’s analysis regarding the substantive issue which I thought was straight forward and correct.
And I noted (again) the dysfunction in this body corporate, with repeated applications largely the result of the actions by Mr Freeman and one other unit owner who together hold a majority interest. I recently heard another application for the same unit title development where Mr Freeman was again a party.
This is a case where I consider an award of costs at the higher end to be appropriate. I award the body corporate 70% of the (reduced) claim for costs, an amount of $6,822.00. The deferred work order
In my decision I deferred making a work order for the repair of windows in Mr Freeman’s unit(s) which affects at least one unit not owned by him.
I took Mr Freeman at his word that he had had the leaks assessed, his builders had done some remedial work, and he would action any continuing problem.
The body corporate has requested that I now make a work order for Mr Freeman to repair his windows as the leaking into another unit owner’s unit from his windows remains a problem.
Ordinarily, I would have made that work order. However, as the matter is now at appeal, I am reluctant to make further orders. Potentially, the Tribunal’s order could conflict with the Court’s order about the same issue, so it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to make a work order now.
The issue of a work order is before the Court on appeal even though the Tribunal deferred making an order. Either the Court will make an order as part of the appeal, or not, or it will remit that issue back to the Tribunal. Result
Mr Freeman will pay Body Corporate 71725 legal costs of $6,822.00. A claim for interest included in counsel’s submissions is premature, the order only now made.
The Tribunal apologises for the delay in issuing this costs order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9036581 — Leaks in Akaroa, Akaroa

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9036581 — Leaks in Akaroa, Akaroa

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What costs should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What costs should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions