What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9051364?

The tribunal order states: BC 384983 is to provide Jennifer Tham or her legal representative, a copy of the

How much money was awarded in case 9051364?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9051364?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9051364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10618126-Tribunal_Order - OP.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9051364?

The tribunal order states: BC 384983 is to provide Jennifer Tham or her legal representative, a copy of the

How much money was awarded in case 9051364?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9051364?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9051364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10618126-Tribunal_Order - OP.pdf.

Newmarket, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9051364 — Unit Titles

Order

BC 384983 is to provide Jennifer Tham or her legal representative, a copy of the owners register no later than by 5:00pm on Friday 26 July 2024.
The Tribunal declares that the 2023/24 AGM was improperly convened and administered, all resolutions from that meeting are set aside.
BC 384983 must arrange and convene a new AGM without delay.
Jennifer Tham may seek any further orders necessary to give effect to this order.
All other applications are dismissed.
Costs submissions to be filed as timetabled below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application from a unit owner, now against only the Body Corporate, and a service contractor – the Body Corporate Manager (“Manager”). In short, the Unit Owner considers that the management of the Body Corporate is inadequate, and that invalid practices have occurred around voting, to such a degree that the resolutions from those meetings should be set aside. The Unit Owner seeks various order around that, including an order that the Body Corporate release to her the register of unit owners.

BACKGROUND

The dispute relates to unit titled premises in Newmarket, Auckland, it is a mixed use residential and commercial property. There are 595 principal units.
The Applicant is concerned that the governance of this complex is inadequate and that the obligations held by the Body Corporate under the UTA are not being complied with. In written submissions, the Applicant states that she represents some 85 unit owners, although this is an application only on behalf of Ms Tham as a principal unit owner.
The company that developed the complex was L & Y Holdings (Management) Limited, and that same company is the current body corporate manager, and one of the respondents in this proceeding.
There are significant repair and maintenance works needed at the complex that require finding via levies. It appears that some of the work for this project will be undertaken by a company owned by Mr Foo who is the Chairman of the Body Corporate. Ms Tham considers that to present a conflict of interest.
As indicated above, Ms Tham is concerned over the operation of the complex and Body Corporate. In light of that it is plain that she wishes to communicate with the other unit owners about her concerns. In order to do that, Ms Tham has requested a copy of the owners register, but that request has been declined. That is a claim before me.
A particular concern for the Applicant is the 2023/24 AGM held on 23 January 2024. Ms Tham considers that there were significant irregularities with that meeting as I will traverse in more detail below. But in short those relate to irregular proxy votes being cast, issues around representation in voting, incorrect forms being used, and uncertainty as to whether there was a genuine quorum.
Ms Tham further considers that how the levies have been raised do not comply with the process in the UTA.
Because Ms Tham considers that the process, voting and resolutions from the AGM were flawed, it is her view that those resolutions should be set aside and deemed to be of no effect.
Ms Tham also raises concerns around the work of the Manager, where it is submitted that the Manager is failing to comply with its obligations in law.
In response, the Body Corporate and Manager state that following the AGM they convened a ‘meeting’ on 6 March 2024 to explain various matters including levies, but state the meeting was challenging, and attendees discourteous, and further on 20 March a written letter was sent providing additional information.
Ultimately Ms Tham has applied for orders from the Tribunal. The application has been made against the Body Corporate, the Manager and members of the committee.
On 7 June 2024, the Tribunal (Adjudicator Greene) issued a preliminary decision, confirming that the application is only between the Unit Owner, and the Body Corporate, and its service contractor. I record that I agree with this result as it relates to the committee members. There is no ability in the UTA for a claim to be brought against the committee. Certainly, a claim can be made against a committee member in their capacity purely as a unit owner, but a claim cannot be brought as it relates to their engagement on the committee.
A hearing was convened in Auckland on 24 July 2024 to consider the Applicants claims. APPLICANT’S CASE
The applicant is represented by Ms Pidgeon who provided written submissions in advance, and oral submissions on the day.
Ms Pidgeon submitted that there are many owners in the premises, and increasing concerns from some unit owners, who consider there is not sufficient independence and that the Body Corporate is not following the correct processes required under the UTA. Register of unit owners
The Applicant has been denied access to the owners register, which has been sought on a legitimate basis, particularly given the Applicant is representing some 85 unit owners, and if she was able to contact the other unit owners, then that number could grow. Ms Pidgeon refers to the Court of Appeal decision of Lihua Limited v BC 366611 & others [2013] NZCA 630, as authority for the need to release the register. Voting irregularities
In relation to the 2023/24 AGM there were irregularities. While the UTA allows voting in person, voting by way of proxy could be used but in this case: a. Proxy forms sent out to the parties did not comply with the form required under the now amended UTA regulations. The forms did not have the ability for unit owners to direct how voting would take place. b. The appointment of representatives was too informal, and there would need to be a proper appointment process, not just the transient approach taken in this case, such as via WeChat messaging. c. There are concerns as to whether there was in fact a valid quorum for the AGM. d. There is evidence of voting via proxy, where the unit owner had not given their proxy. e. The recording of the meeting and voting eligibility was deficient.
Ms Pidgeon notes that the Body Corporate would not allow access to the base documents from the meeting in order to allow confirmation that the voting, representation and proxy’s were correctly recorded.
Ms Pidgeon also notes there has been shifting sands with minutes being amended when concerns are identified. In short, the Body Corporate has moved to ensure that there is a recorded quorum even if that was not the correct situation.
Further it is not possible to back-fill representatives after voting in order to establish a quorum, that needed to be done prior or at the meeting.
Given there was no quorum proven, then there would be no valid resolutions arising from that meeting. Body Corporate Manager
The Body Corporate Manager is associated to the developer. Ms Pidgeon notes it has just come to light that they do not have a trust account, which is of considerable concern given there are funds being raised for expensive works.
The Code of Conduct placed a range of obligations on the Manager, which the Manager has failed to comply with.
The Manager has failed to circulate minutes within the time required in the UTA, which is a breach of that legislation. Levies
There are irregularities with how levies are raised, in that the levies are not raised based on unit entitlement, but based on buildings and cost centres. Removal of Chair and Committee
The Applicant seeks an order that the body corporate chair and committee be removed given: a. The issues set out above with the AGM. b. Failure to follow the required legal obligations, such as disclosure obligations. c. Conflicts of interest given that the developer (or associated companies) are seeking to undertake the remediation works.
Various unit owners should be precluded from being eligible for re-election. BODY CORPORATE’S CASE
There was no appearance by the Body Corporate at the hearing.
Ms Lim (counsel for the Manager) advised me at the hearing today that she had initially been appointed to represent both the Body Corporate, and the Manager, but two days prior to the hearing her instructions from the Body Corporate have been withdrawn, that was following concerns from the insurer.
There was nobody at the hearing today who had authority to represent the Body Corporate in legal proceedings.
However, it is the case the Ms Lim had filed a written statement of defence at the time she was representing the Body Corporate (dated 13 May 2024), so I will proceed on the basis that that written defence sets out the position of the Body Corporate. I will not set that out here, but will consider the defence further in my analysis below. SERVICE CONTRACTOR’S CASE
The Body Corporate Manager is represented by Lim.
I record that after hearing submissions from Ms Pidgeon, I advised that the claim against the Manager could not be sustained. That was because there is no legal relationship between the Manager and Ms Tham. I will explain that further below.

ANALYSIS

Application against Body Corporate Manager

As noted above, after hearing submissions from Ms Pidgeon, I advised that the claim against the Manager could not be sustained. That was because there is no legal relationship between the Manager and Ms Tham.
The legal relationship that exists is between the Manager and the Body Corporate. In that regard, I note the High Court decision of Singh v Boutique Body Corporates Limited and Others [2019] NZHC 1707. In that case, Ms Singh who was a unit owner, like Ms Tham, brought an application under the UTA against the body corporate manager (and committee members). The Court confirmed that there was no duty arising between the service contractor and individual unit owners, rather the duty existed between the service contractor and body corporate. The Court held: [22] The question here is whether Boutique Body Corporates Ltd owes Ms Singh a duty of care in addition to any duties it owes the body corporate.... [23] It does not follow that because Boutique Body Corporates Ltd owes a duty of care to the body corporate, it also owes a duty of care to its members, the unit owners. ... [26] .... In general, the [service contractor] assumes a duty of care only to the body corporate, not to individual owners. That means that the body corporate can hold the professional to account. Any decision to do so will be made by the body corporate in a general meeting or by those acting with delegated authority of the body corporate. ... [27] A policy reason supports this approach. By confining the body corporate secretary’s duty of care in tort to the body corporate, the risks of conflicting duties are reduced. Differences among members of a body corporate are common. There may be legitimate differences of opinion on many matters in the administration of a body corporate. A body corporate secretary can hardly be expected to cater for every point of view. The provisions in the Unit Titles Act for decision-making by the body corporate – by resolution in general meeting or by chairpersons or committees with delegated authority - mean that instructions and authority to the body corporate are fixed by what the body corporate as a whole decides, not by the wishes of individual members. Correspondingly the secretary assumes responsibility to the body corporate as a whole, not to individual members, and the scope of the duty is determined by the instructions and authority given to it by the body corporate as a whole.
The result is that the claim against the service contractor is dismissed. Application by Body Corporate and Manager
A combined ‘counterclaim’ has been filed by the Body Corporate and Manager, seeking an order that the Applicant (Ms Tham) pay $6,650.29.
The ‘counterclaim’ must be dismissed. This ‘counterclaim’ is a request at the end of the filed statement of defence. If the Body Corporate and Manager are seeking to file a claim against the Unit Owner, then they must do so in the usual way, by completing a claim via Tenancy Services and paying the necessary filing fee for that ($250 for mediation, $500 if claim is direct to adjudication). The counter claim is therefore not valid, so dismissed. Application against the Body Corporate
I am entirely satisfied that the claims filed by Ms Tham, were correctly filed against the Body Corporate. Ultimately decisions made by the Manager under its authority from the Body Corporate, are deemed to be decisions of the Body Corporate. Access to owners register
I will deal firstly with the issue around access to the owners register. Again Ms Tham is of the view that the Body Corporate is not properly managing the complex, or complying with its legal obligations. I accept without reservation that Ms Tham is genuine in her beliefs in that regard, whether or not she is correct in them.
Given those beliefs, Ms Tham wanted to communicate with the other unit owners, to raise her concerns, and no doubt move to have those other unit owners aligning with Ms Tham’s position – and there is nothing at all problematic with that from a legal perspective. But in order to be able to engage with the other unit owners, Ms Tham needed to access the owners register, so she could get the contact details for those other owners. I understand that is particularly relevant here, given the number of unit owners living outside of New Zealand.
I accept the Body Corporate has denied Ms Tham access to that register.
Section 85 of the UTA requires that the Body Corporate maintain a register of unit owners: (1) A body corporate must keep and maintain a register of all owners of principal units and accessory units on the unit plan in accordance with the regulations.
The relevant regulations are the Unit Titles Regulations 2011, which importantly sets out a right for a unit owner to search the register, the relevant regulations require at regulation 4: (1) A body corporate must include the following information in a register of unit owners, to the extent that the information is relevant, for every unit owner in a unit title development: (a) the unit number; and (b) the unit owner’s full name; and (c) the unit owner’s contact details and preferred method of contact; and (d) the unit owner’s ownership interest; and (e) the unit owner’s utility interest; and (f) the name, contact details, and preferred method of contact of any representative of the unit owner; and (g) the name, contact details, and preferred method of contact of any agent appointed by the unit owner under section 81 of the Act; and (h) if the unit owner is a corporation, the name, contact details, and preferred method of contact of a director or representative of the corporation; and (i) if the unit is held on trust, the name, contact details, and preferred method of contact of each trustee of the trust; and (j) if the unit owner is the Crown, the name, contact details, and preferred method of contact of the appropriate Minister or officer or employee of the Crown. (2) A unit owner’s preferred method of contact— (a) must be either by post or by email; and (b) may be through— (i) an agent appointed under section 81 of the Act or a representative; or (ii) the subsidiary body corporate representative, the chairperson, or the body corporate committee, if the unit owner is a subsidiary body corporate. (3) The following may search a register of unit owners for the purposes specified in subclause (4): (a) the chairperson: (b) the body corporate committee: (c) a person approved by the body corporate or the body corporate committee. (4) The purposes referred to in subclause (3) are— (a) to give notice of body corporate meetings: (b) to give notice of resolutions voted on: (c) to advise unit owners of matters relating to the body corporate or the unit title development: (d) to serve documents: (e) to forward information or documentation from a unit owner to another unit owner, provided that the information or documentation— (i) relates to the management of the unit title development; or (ii) relates to the use or enjoyment of the unit title development.
Accordingly, the regulations require the Body Corporate to maintain a register of unit owners with their contact details, and those can be searched by a person approved by the body Corporate if the purpose of the search is to forward documents from one unit owner to other unit owners around the management of the complex.
Ms Pidgeon referred to the Court of Appeal decision of Lihua Limited v BC 366611 and Others [2013] NZCA 630. I agree that is the authority around release of the information on the register for the purposes Ms Tham seeks it.
In that case Lihua believed the body corporate to be insolvent and poorly managed, and wanted to communicate to the other unit owners in relation to that. As it relates to regulation 4(4), the Court of Appeal said this: [28]...Regulation 4(4) protects the privacy interests of unit owners, which extends to keeping their names and contact details from fellow owners. But that interest gives way where a fellow owner wishes to contact them for generously defined purposes. [29] It bears emphasis that the power to deny a unit owner access to the register is a very modest one. The regulation supports accountability of the committee and body corporate by facilitating independent communication among unit owners about the development’s management or use and enjoyment. An applicant may wish to contact fellow owners precisely because it has failed to achieve its objectives via the body corporate’s governance processes or management. It follows that the committee cannot justify denying access merely because it disagrees with the applicant on the merits of any given dispute. [30] We observe that an applicant might sensibly satisfy the committee of its purpose by providing a copy of the proposed communication, as [the High Court] suggested, but that is not a prerequisite. If the committee feels the need to set the record straight it may contact owners itself.
I note that one of the arguments made by the body corporate in that case, was that the right to access the register was akin to judicial review proceedings. That argument did not find favour with the High Court, which observed that: [31] Mr Price argued that any application for access must be treated as if it were an application for judicial review. He emphasised that the power to grant or deny access is a statutory power. Indeed it is, but it does not follow that an owner must seek relief in the High Court or make out grounds for judicial review. The 2010 Act confers on the Tenancy Tribunal jurisdiction to decide all disputes between unit owners and the body corporate or its administrators, and the Tribunal makes its decisions on the merits, serving as what has been called an “expeditious clearing house” for such disputes. The District Court and High Court also have jurisdiction in certain circumstances.
This is a case where I am certain that Ms Tham has genuine reasons for wanting to communicate with the other owners about management of this complex, and I find that she meets the requirements to be allowed access to the owners register in order to obtain the owners contact details to communicate with them directly. I make orders that the register be provided without delay. Validity of the AGM
Ms Tham challenges the validity of the AGM on a number of grounds. As I will now explain, I accept that the AGM was not properly convened, and the defects are to the extent that the only reasonable course open to the Tribunal is to declare that all resolutions were invalid, meaning the AGM must be reconvened, and any necessary resolutions taken again. Proxy voting
Ms Tham has challenged the process around proxy voting from three perspectives, that is that the proxy form used by the Body Corporate was wrong, and secondly, that there were irregular practices involved with the accepting and counting of proxy votes, and thirdly a flaw with accepting representatives.
In terms of the proxy form, I agree with Ms Pidgeon that the form used was wrong. The form is a statutory form and is found in the Unit Titles Regulations 2011. Of relevance, that form at the time of the AGM includes the section where the unit owner writes in their details, but also allows the unit owner to specify how they want their proxy to vote on any specific resolution. That form was amended on 9 May 2023, so from that date that was the form that the Body Corporate needed to have used.
But the form that was used by the Body Corporate was the prior version of the form, which did not allow the unit owner an ability to direct how their vote was to be cast.
I cannot know whether the outcome of voting would be materially different if the correct form was used, but it may have been.
The second issue taken by Ms Tham relates to irregularities around proxy voting, and in particular there had been proxy votes recorded when the evidence from the unit owner is that they did not give any proxy in the first place. For example, I have been provided with an affidavit from Ping Tong Chan, a unit owner, who states: I am the owner of unit 0703, B507. B508, [unreadable] 176 Broadway Newmarket Queens Lodge apartments, Auckland. I wish to confirm that I did not ask the body corporate committee member Emily Hu to represent me in the 2024 annual general meeting as my proxy
Similarly an affidavit from Zubei Wang states: I am the owner of unit A515, 176 Broadway, Queens Lodge Apartment New Market Auckland. I wish to confirm that I didn’t fill ‘proxy appointment form’ to ask the Body Corporate committee member, Emily Hu to represent me in the 2023 Annual General Meeting as my proxy.
I have also received statement from unit owner Julienne Huang stating: Further to Annual General Meeting and the in-person dialogue held on the 6 th of March, I believe that you and the members of the committee did not follow thorough with the procedures regarding proxy and voting. A member of the committee voted on my behalf without informing me, nor asking for my consent. I have not sighed any proxy form or voting form, so I decline your decision regarding recladding and sprinklers. I request an EGM to be held as soon as possible. In the hopes to resolve these issues.
I have serious concerns based on the evidence provided, that the casting and counting of invalid votes has occurred.
The third ground advanced, relates to accepting ‘representatives’ as having authority to cast votes. Ms Pidgeon stated that in this case there at one stage, 58 representatives were recorded as voting, which is about 10% of the entire principal units. The issue taken by Ms Tham is that the Body Corporate has accepted appointment as a representative by informal means, such as WeChat messages. Ms Pidgeon submits:
The Respondents in their Statement of Defence allege that various owners sent wechat messages authorizing Emily Hu to represent them at the meeting. As Manager the manager should have known that wechat messaging is not enough authority for a party to be recorded in the minutes as having a proxy. Ping Tong Chan did not provide a proxy and while he may have communicated with Emily Hu he is only one of the Trustees of the Chan Family Trust with the other trustee being Ah Na Wong. Proxies need to be signed by the Eligible Voter and in the cases of trusts, this will be all Trustees.
The high number of “Representatives” being 58 in total recorded in the second amended minutes is highly unusual and the Applicant and does not believe that they meet the grounds for being a representative as required by s96 of the UTA. A wechat message is not authority enough under the UTA to appoint a representative.
The Applicant and their supporters have no confidence in the Manager applying the UTA correctly as to whether proxies have validly been signed or whether “representatives” are properly representatives as required under s96 of the UTA.
I agree with Ms Pidgeon on this. There are significant ramifications for all unit owners around voting, and all unit owners are entitled to a measure of security in the voting process being robust.
In order to be eligible to vote as a representative, the representative’s name must first be recorded on the register of unit owners (see section 96(1)(a), UTA).
In any event, in order to formally appoint a representative and have the representative recorded in the owners register, then the owner must notify the body corporate in writing (section 85(2)).
In this case the Body Corporate’s position is that there was authority given such as via WeChat messages appointing a representative. The Body Corporate and Manager state for example: They have wechat communications between Emily Hu and Zubei Wang dated 13 December 2022 where Zubei Wang authorised Emily Hu to attend the meeting on Zubei Wang’s behalf.
Section 205 of the UTA deals with the service of documents and notices, so any notice appointing a representative needed to comply with that provision. The version of the UTA applying at the time of the 2023/24 AGM only allowed for electronic service of documents either by email or facsimile. There was no ability to serve a notice by message services like WeChat or text message.
The result must be that it would seem some of the votes counted would be from individuals who would not meet the definition of being representatives.
The Body Corporate states in its defence to the claim that: The 20th March 2024 Letter provided, interalia, a link to a spreadsheet setting out all unit owners, their attendance either by themselves, proxy or representatives and further noted that there was a total of 595 units, the quorum required is 149 and that the number attended the 2023/2024 AGM was 172.
Taking into consideration the issues established by Ms Tham, I am not convinced that the difference between a necessary quorum of 149, and those recorded as attending of 172, is so large that there could be no prospect of a different outcome if the voting process was compliant with the UTA.
I also observe that the Body Corporate has accepted there were ‘errors’ in the minutes. Having minor issues in minutes for a sizeable meeting would not be unusual, but I do not consider that could be said for the errors in the minutes in this case, as it relates to voting. Those errors are of significance, and would be consistent with a fundamentally flawed process in the voting, whatever the cause of those flaws were.
Overall, Ms Tham has convinced me that there are likely to be serious defects with the voting at the AGM on all three grounds. The extent of those defects are that I find they cannot be remedied any other way, than declaring the whole of the AGM to be invalid, both in terms of procedure and any resolutions arising from that AGM. The result must of course be that a new AGM be convened and that is ordered. Levies
The unit owner has raised concerns around how the levies have been raised. Given my above finding that the resolutions from the AGM are invalid, it must now follow that the resolutions which raised the levies must also be taken again. Given that outcome, it is not necessary for me to focus on how the levies were raised.
However, I accept the submissions of Ms Pidgeon on this matter as setting out the correct legal position.
Levies must be based on unit entitlement. Each unit owner is liable to pay levies to the extent of the unit entitlement of their unit(s). In this case it appears that the Body Corporate has charged a different course in how it calculates the levies, such as applying a different scale depending on the unit. Ms Lim advised at the hearing today that the Body Corporate has applied a process determined by this Body Corporate in how the levies are determined. The Body Corporate cannot do that, it must follow the process set out in the UTA. Certainly, if work is needed that substantially benefits one unit or another, then there is a mechanism in the UTA to recover those costs from those unit owners, but that is done subsequently, not applied at the time of the levy calculation.
I encourage the Body Corporate to review how it is calculating the levies for the now pending AGM.

CONCLUSION

I conclude by setting out the orders sought (in italics) and the Tribunal’s conclusion on those (non-italics):
Orders for the disclosure of the owners register. a. This is ordered, the Body Corporate is to release the owners register for searching by Ms Tham or her legal representative, no later than by 5:00 pm on Friday 26 July 2024.
That the 2022 and 2024 Body Corporate AGMs be ordered to have not been properly held, and all general and special levies levied at the 2024 AGM be declared invalid, and any penalties incurred to be credited, and that there is no valid committee elected. a. The AGM for 2023/24 is declared invalid as are the resolutions from that AGM. The AGM must be held again. If any penalties arise for late payment of levies from that AGM, they must be credited back to the unit owners. It must follow that there now needs to be another election of the chair and committee members as would normally occur at an AGM.
That L & Y Holdings (Management) Limited be removed as BC Manager for the Body Corporate and be ordered to transfer all documents, information and funds held to the new Body Corporate Manager to be appointed. a. I decline to make this order. It is not for the Tribunal to decide who the body corporate manager will be, that is only a matter for the Body Corporate to decide. If the Body Corporate decide on a change of manager, then there will be obligations to transfer documents and information, but that is not relevant now.
That the BC be ordered to call a new AGM for 2024 using a Tribunal appointed professional Body Corporate Manager (other than L & Y Holdings (Management) Limited) to call and rehold the 2024 AGM, with standard resolutions but including: i. A resolution to appoint a replacement BC Manager other than L & Y Holdings (Management) Limited as manager or any entity associated with the director and shareholder or staff of that company and/or the Developer. ii. Hold elections for a new committee and chairperson to be appointed. iii. That levies be levied in accordance with the UTA. a. A new AGM has been directed, and there are certain matters that the UTA requires be considered at that AGM, it is not necessary for me to specifically order them here. But like any AGM, the unit owners will now have an opportunity to present any resolutions they want considered. As I have discussed above, the levies must be calculated as the UTA 2010 requires it.
That Moo Heck Foo known as Mark Foo be prohibited from being elected as body corporate chairperson or committee member and Kuo Shao-chi Kuo (also known as George Kuo), Vivienn Wong and Emily Hu, be prohibited from being elected as chairpersons or committee members. a. The Tribunal cannot make this order. The UTA does have some restrictions on unit owners being eligible for reappointment (such as when they are removed from office), but that will not be the case here.
That the Body Corporate be ordered to obtain project management and a long-term maintenance plan from an independent supplier and that the new committee shall audit the cladding and fire sprinkler project budgets and payments to interested parties. a. The Tribunal has no lawful authority to order that. What happens with the long-term maintenance plan, or who produces it, is for the Body Corporate to decide. b. There is an ability for a Body Corporate to vote on having accounts audited, the usual voting process would be the appropriate place for this request to be considered.
All legal costs, disbursements and filing fees in relation to its preparing, drafting, and filing the Statement of Claim, and other legal documentation, preparing for the hearing and attending the hearing be paid by the Respondents on a solicitor client basis in shares as allocated by the Adjudicator between L & Y Holdings (Management) Limited and Moo Heck Foo known as Mark Foo and any other parties as order by the Adjudicator. a. I will address this below.

COSTS

The usual position is that a successful party can claim costs, and here the Applicant and the Manager has been mostly successful. If any claim for costs is to be made, submissions are to be filed as follows: a. The application for costs and associated submissions to be filed within 10 working days of this order. b. Any response to the claim and submissions to then be filed within 10 working days of receipt of the claim and submissions.
I will then decide the question of costs on the papers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9051364 — Unit Titles in Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9051364 — Unit Titles in Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions