What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9044685 about?

The tribunal order states: Ngātiwai Holdings Limited must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75

How much money was awarded in case 9044685?

The reconciled net award was $17,370.75.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044685?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044685?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11308575-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9044685 about?

The tribunal order states: Ngātiwai Holdings Limited must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75

How much money was awarded in case 9044685?

The reconciled net award was $17,370.75.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044685?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044685?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11308575-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tutukaka, Whangarei Tenancy Tribunal Case 9044685 — Leaks

Order

Ngātiwai Holdings Limited must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Costs following successful application by Body Corporate $17,370.75 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $17,370.75

Reasons

On 24 October 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision awarding the Body Corporate the reimbursement of the costs of plumbing and hotel lift service maintenance work together with interest and the filing fee, a total of $35,627.07.
I invited written submissions on costs from counsel for the body corporate and reply submissions from counsel for Ngātiwai Holdings Limited (NHL) on a time table I set.
Both parties have provided written submissions. The body corporate seeks costs of $25,175.00 plus GST being the actual legal costs incurred by it recovering levies for the work done and reallocated to NHL.
Counsel for NHL has submitted that the costs claimed are objectively too high, are not supported by detailed time and costs records and that the issues were not complex nor were the matters in dispute significantly important.
Counsel has referred to the District Court scale of costs and to relevant case law in support of the costs submissions made. Counsel has submitted that costs should not exceed $17,000.00 plus GST. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel. Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA, but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...I accept that the relevant invoices refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before the 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.
The Tribunal must have regard to these factors and to wider considerations such as the District Court scale costs, though it is not bound to make cost decisions solely based on the scale; the scale is a guide only.
And while the Tribunal requires details of how the costs claimed were calculated, it is not required to undertake a forensic analysis of the time and cost records for the amount sought. Here, counsel for the Body Corporate has provided a general breakdown of the hours spent and the categories relevant to the work done, noting a variable hourly rate charge which the Tribunal can assume relates to the seniority of the various lawyers involved, lower for junior solicitors and higher for partners.
In the absence of objectively obvious excessive charges, any suggestion that the costs claimed are excessive as to the time incurred or the hourly rates charged is a matter for Law Society scrutiny on an application for costs revision. Analysis
Counsel for the body corporate has claimed full costs on the basis that this was an application for levy recovery.
The law (quoted by counsel) certainly requires full reimbursement of costs incurred recovering an operating levy. But this case was different. While levies were raised as the Act requires, this was a genuine dispute about the application of sections 126 and 138 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA); it was a reallocation of costs dispute.
Disputes of this kind are not simple levy recovery disputes. They involve a consideration of the sections of the UTA I have referred to. In other words, NHL did not simply refuse to pay its operating levies, it had a genuine dispute about its liability for costs incurred which it considered were a body corporate repair and maintenance responsibility under section 138 UTA.
In that situation, the body corporate is not entitled to full solicitor/client legal costs as it would be on a simple outstanding operating levy recovery application.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I find that a 66% contribution as in Ikeda is too high in this case. The hearing was not long; the issues were not complex; no urgency was required; and the issues were not especially important. This was a ‘bread and butter’ Tribunal case concerning the reallocation of repair and maintenance costs and the body corporate’s decision to recover them from NHL.
I have decided that a 60% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case. Result
NHL must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75 for costs following its unsuccessful defence to the application.

Order

Ngātiwai Holdings Limited must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Costs following successful application by Body Corporate $17,370.75 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $17,370.75

Reasons

On 24 October 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision awarding the Body Corporate the reimbursement of the costs of plumbing and hotel lift service maintenance work together with interest and the filing fee, a total of $35,627.07.
I invited written submissions on costs from counsel for the body corporate and reply submissions from counsel for Ngātiwai Holdings Limited (NHL) on a time table I set.
Both parties have provided written submissions. The body corporate seeks costs of $25,175.00 plus GST being the actual legal costs incurred by it recovering levies for the work done and reallocated to NHL.
Counsel for NHL has submitted that the costs claimed are objectively too high, are not supported by detailed time and costs records and that the issues were not complex nor were the matters in dispute significantly important.
Counsel has referred to the District Court scale of costs and to relevant case law in support of the costs submissions made. Counsel has submitted that costs should not exceed $17,000.00 plus GST. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel. Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA, but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...I accept that the relevant invoices refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before the 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.
The Tribunal must have regard to these factors and to wider considerations such as the District Court scale costs, though it is not bound to make cost decisions solely based on the scale; the scale is a guide only.
And while the Tribunal requires details of how the costs claimed were calculated, it is not required to undertake a forensic analysis of the time and cost records for the amount sought. Here, counsel for the Body Corporate has provided a general breakdown of the hours spent and the categories relevant to the work done, noting a variable hourly rate charge which the Tribunal can assume relates to the seniority of the various lawyers involved, lower for junior solicitors and higher for partners.
In the absence of objectively obvious excessive charges, any suggestion that the costs claimed are excessive as to the time incurred or the hourly rates charged is a matter for Law Society scrutiny on an application for costs revision. Analysis
Counsel for the body corporate has claimed full costs on the basis that this was an application for levy recovery.
The law (quoted by counsel) certainly requires full reimbursement of costs incurred recovering an operating levy. But this case was different. While levies were raised as the Act requires, this was a genuine dispute about the application of sections 126 and 138 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA); it was a reallocation of costs dispute.
Disputes of this kind are not simple levy recovery disputes. They involve a consideration of the sections of the UTA I have referred to. In other words, NHL did not simply refuse to pay its operating levies, it had a genuine dispute about its liability for costs incurred which it considered were a body corporate repair and maintenance responsibility under section 138 UTA.
In that situation, the body corporate is not entitled to full solicitor/client legal costs as it would be on a simple outstanding operating levy recovery application.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I find that a 66% contribution as in Ikeda is too high in this case. The hearing was not long; the issues were not complex; no urgency was required; and the issues were not especially important. This was a ‘bread and butter’ Tribunal case concerning the reallocation of repair and maintenance costs and the body corporate’s decision to recover them from NHL.
I have decided that a 60% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case. Result
NHL must pay Body Corporate 349622 $17,370.75 for costs following its unsuccessful defence to the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044685 — Leaks in Tutukaka, Whangarei

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044685 — Leaks in Tutukaka, Whangarei

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions