What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9040364?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 499665 must pay Asia Ventures Limited the sum of $3,300.00

How much money was awarded in case 9040364?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9040364?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9040364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11556268-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9040364?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 499665 must pay Asia Ventures Limited the sum of $3,300.00

How much money was awarded in case 9040364?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9040364?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9040364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11556268-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9040364 — Unit Titles

Order

Body Corporate 499665 must pay Asia Ventures Limited the sum of $3,300.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence the proceedings.
All other claims for costs are declined.

BACKGROUND

As reflected in the earlier orders, the underlying dispute relates to commercial premises known as the Victoria Park Markets.
The overall complex does not have effective common property, rather the public and service areas in the complex are a separate principal unit, known as PU 1000B. Access rights and costs for operating PU 1000B are found in a land covenant, and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the body corporate and Tenancy Tribunal.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited (BTL) provided services to the Body Corporate as the Body Corporate Manager (a service contractor), and also services to the owners of PU 1000B (in that role known as the facilities manager).
The applicant in this case is Asia Ventures Limited (AVL) which is one of the principal unit owners.
AVL filed an application in the Tribunal against the Body Corporate and BTL. The application related to various matters including: a. How levies were determined. b. Approval for the construction of a restaurant (Milenta) on PU 1000B. c. A conflict of interest arising with BTL.
The day prior to the hearing, the claim against BTL was withdrawn.
On 24 December 2024 the Tribunal issued a decision in which AVL were substantially successful. The order did the following a. Found defects with how levies were raised, and ordered the levy invoices to be reissued to AVL. b. Declared a conflict of interest to arise with BTL acting as both the body corporate manager and facilities manager, and that this conflict was not adequately managed.
AVL and BTL subsequently applied for costs. BARFOOT & THOMPSONS SUBMISSIONS
BTL seek costs of $16,318.50, the key points of those submissions where that: a. BTL was legally represented. b. The claim should never have been filed against BTL as they were no more than a service contractor, or contractor for another unit owner, but in any case there was no legal duty owned to AVL.

ASIA VENTURES LIMITED SUBMISSIONS

Mr Seow on behalf of AVL filed submissions, seeking an order of costs to the sum of $22,800.00. In short, while Mr Seow presented his company directly, it was submitted that significant time was required to prepare and prosecute the unit owners case in the Tribunal, and he should be compensated for that.

BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSIONS

The position of the body corporate is that costs should lay where they fall. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the absence of a cost being incurred, an order cannot be made.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

While this is a case under the Unit Titles Act 2010, the UTA confirms that the mechanical provisions around the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal, are those found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 102 of the RTA relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” where “any of the parties was presented by counsel”. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by AVL the applicant, and BTL a respondent.
In this case, two of the parties were represented by counsel, that was the body corporate and BTL. That means the Tribunal “may” make an order of costs in connection with the proceeding.
I accept that on the face of it, BTL has been successful in defending the proceeding, as the application against then was withdrawn. But consideration of the order sees that the Tribunal concluded that the body corporate has not properly administered it obligations under the UTA. I do not know what the contribution to that was from BTL (the professional manager), because that was not a matter before the Tribunal, and I reach no view on it.
However, I consider that given the Tribunal’s findings, this is a case where cost between the parties should lay where they fall (with the exception of the filing fee).
If there is any issue as to the legal costs incurred from BTL, that is a matter that should be between BTL and the body corporate. If those two parties cannot agree on this, then it could be the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal as a dispute between the body corporate and a service contractor.
As far as the application from costs from AVL are concerned, certainly the Tribunal can order that the filing fee be reimbursed, that is expected in section 102(4), as the applicant been wholly successful if not substantially successful in the claim.
However there is no basis to order costs be paid to the applicant beyond that. Ms Toan is correct in her submission that costs can only be ordered when the party has actually incurred the cost. The Tenancy Tribunal is a lay Tribunal, and for public policy

Reasons

limits costs orders, and generally those orders are only made to reimburse costs for legal representatives or in some cases professional reports.

That follows the usual legal position as set out in the District Court appeal of Trenwith v Badiei [1996] DCR 9, an appeal of a Tenancy Tribunal costs decision, where Judge McElrea confirmed: In normal circumstances lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs as distinct from disbursements in legal proceedings. This conventional rule was discussed and explained in a careful judgment of Thorp J as to costs in Jagwar Holdings Ltd v Julian (High Court, Auckland, CP 691191, 24 July 1992). It was there held that the Court could not allow litigants in person remuneration or recompense for their time spent attending the Court.
That must be the situation for Mr Seow’s time and effort in prosecuting AVL’s claims. The only cost I can order is reimbursement of the filing fee, and that is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9040364 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9040364 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

Order

BACKGROUND

ASIA VENTURES LIMITED SUBMISSIONS

BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSIONS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Reasons

Property management

Order

BACKGROUND

ASIA VENTURES LIMITED SUBMISSIONS

BODY CORPORATE SUBMISSIONS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Reasons

Property management