Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9043864 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 9 Jan 2026 · Published 9 Jan 2026 · Application 9043864
- Unit Titles
Order
- The Body Corporate is to pay Snug Harbour Limited the sum of $5,982.00, being additional costs (in addition to the amount earlier paid).
Reasons
- This decision relates to an application for costs. The Tribunal has previously issued a costs order, however a rehearing was granted in relation to that decision, as the Tribunal had missed considering additional invoices.
BACKGROUND
- There is a complicated background in this case, which I will only summarise very briefly for context for this costs decision.
- The dispute relates to commercial premises, the Victoria Park Markets. Two applications were filed in the Tribunal by Snug Harbour Limited (a unit owner at the complex), one against the body corporate (9043864), the other against the body corporate, another unit owner, and Barfoot & Thompson Limited (9038104). But this costs decision only relates to the claim against the Body Corporate (9043864).
- As set out in the rehearing decision (11 August 2025), when the Tribunal issued its original costs decision (11 March 2025), I made a partial order for costs to the sum of $8,936.60. That comprised two-thirds of the amount claimed. However I declined a further amount claimed, which had been claimed with reference to an incorrect application number. I also ordered the filing fee be paid as a cost, which was $500.00. The costs ordered and filing fee have been paid to the Unit Owner.
- On 11 August 2025, a rehearing of the costs claim was granted, because I accept that some of the claimed invoices had not been considered.
- This rehearing has proceeded on the papers, with the Unit Owner and Body Corporate filing written submissions.
UNIT OWNERS CASE
- The Unit Owner submits that in addition to the amounts ordered in the original order, it had incurred $13,989.75 in legal fees in relation to this dispute. The invoices were provided, and taking a similar approach to the original costs order, the Unit Owner submits that two-thirds of that should be awarded.
- The Unit Owner has also provided submissions in reply to the Body Corporate’s submissions summarised below.
BODY CORPORATES CASE
- Ms Toan for the Body Corporate has provided a fulsome submission in response, the key points being: a. The original costs order, which included the filing fee, has been paid. b. The invoice from Pidgeon Judd 023381 was considered and ordered in the original costs award, so should not be ordered again. c. Once that invoice is removed, the three outstanding invoices total $8,973.00. d. It would be appropriate to also take a two-thirds approach to any outstanding order if the Tribunal was minded.
ANALYSIS
- In my original costs order, I have set out the relevant legal considerations that apply to costs orders, and I will take the same approach here.
- The only issue with the original costs claim, is that some of the further invoices the Unit Owner received had not been considered, and therefore no costs were ordered for those.
- The approach I intend to take, is not to interfere with earlier amount ordered which was $9,436.75, which included the filing fee paid for this claim. That has been paid by the Body Corporate, and other than the fact of the missed invoices, neither party has applied for a rehearing or appeal on that. I simply adopt that original order for the filing fee and invoices ordered there.
- What remains, is that there are three further invoices that were not ordered, and they should have been, for the same reasons the original invoices were ordered. Those new invoices total $8,973.00.
- I make a further costs order that the Body Corporate is to pay $5,982.00 as an additional payment, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is in addition to the amount the Body Corporate has already paid.
- I have not interfered with the order for costs, which has already been made and paid by the respondent.