What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9052404?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9052404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9052404?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9052404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12318945-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9052404?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9052404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9052404?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9052404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12318945-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9052404 — Unit Titles

Order

ON COSTS

David Alexander Brown must pay costs of $6,918.76 to Body Corporate 159107, Body Corporate Administrators Limited, Paula Kelly Beaton and Kathy Ross immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the substantive hearing on 22 November 2024.
The respondents were represented by counsel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed Mr Brown’s claims. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the body corporate, its chairperson and its manager (‘the respondents’) have breached any of their duties or obligations under the UTA.
I reserved the issue of costs for the proceedings and invited both parties to file written submissions, which have been duly filed.
The respondent’s counsel filed submissions seeking costs on a two-thirds’ basis; the applicant opposes the respondents’ claim for costs.
I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers, as follows.
The applicant submits that he should not be responsible to pay costs and the fees charged by the respondents’ solicitors Price Baker Berridge are exceedingly high and complex.
The general principle is costs follow the event.
It is incumbent on the party bringing proceedings in an adversarial forum, which includes the tenancy tribunal, to be able to prove its case brought before the court or adjudication forum.
Here the dismissal of the applicant’s claim in its entirety meant that the body corporate and other respondents have been successful in their defence of the claim. Because the respondents have incurred legal costs, they are entitled to an order for the applicant to pay costs.
Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel.
The issue is what are ‘reasonable costs’ in the circumstances.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, there is no schedule as to costs and so the Tribunal traditionally relies on common law case authorities that outline the principles as to awards of costs.
Prior to the introduction of schedules the District Court and High Court the courts awarded a reasonable contribution to costs based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties – see Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149.
In Holden the court stated “...a court [or Tribunal] should not forget the ultimate question or overlook the principles which underlie. There is wood as well as the trees. The ultimate question always remains: What is a reasonable contribution in these particular circumstances?”
The leading text by Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5 states: The Tribunal may also order a party to pay the reasonable costs of any other party to the proceedings ... The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal referring to the factors set out in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 148 – 149. What is considered “reasonable contribution” to a successful party’s costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 percent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40-70 per cent of actual costs (Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd at 149-150).
In this case, counsel for the respondents says that the application and submissions were lengthy and therefore involved a considerable amount of time for reading and for effective preparation to refute. In line with the principles, the Tribunal should award two-thirds of the actual legal costs incurred in the proceedings.
I agree.
Section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the successful party on matters in connection with the proceedings, and I am satisfied the legal costs incurred by the respondents totalling $10,378.14 to be in connection with the proceedings against which the two-thirds principle applies.
Price Baker Berridge’s time records outline the work done for the fees charged for the first case conference hearing, filing of statement of defence and the substantive hearing in November 2024.
Following Holden, I consider an award of costs of $6,918.76 being two-thirds of the total costs of $10,378.14 appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Even with two-thirds of legal costs awarded in favour of the respondents, they still carry the remaining one-third costs which were necessitated by the applicant bringing the proceedings in the first place.
I therefore make an order for the applicant to pay costs of $6,918.76 to the respondents.

Order

ON COSTS

David Alexander Brown must pay costs of $6,918.76 to Body Corporate 159107, Body Corporate Administrators Limited, Paula Kelly Beaton and Kathy Ross immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the substantive hearing on 22 November 2024.
The respondents were represented by counsel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed Mr Brown’s claims. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the body corporate, its chairperson and its manager (‘the respondents’) have breached any of their duties or obligations under the UTA.
I reserved the issue of costs for the proceedings and invited both parties to file written submissions, which have been duly filed.
The respondent’s counsel filed submissions seeking costs on a two-thirds’ basis; the applicant opposes the respondents’ claim for costs.
I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers, as follows.
The applicant submits that he should not be responsible to pay costs and the fees charged by the respondents’ solicitors Price Baker Berridge are exceedingly high and complex.
The general principle is costs follow the event.
It is incumbent on the party bringing proceedings in an adversarial forum, which includes the tenancy tribunal, to be able to prove its case brought before the court or adjudication forum.
Here the dismissal of the applicant’s claim in its entirety meant that the body corporate and other respondents have been successful in their defence of the claim. Because the respondents have incurred legal costs, they are entitled to an order for the applicant to pay costs.
Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel.
The issue is what are ‘reasonable costs’ in the circumstances.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, there is no schedule as to costs and so the Tribunal traditionally relies on common law case authorities that outline the principles as to awards of costs.
Prior to the introduction of schedules the District Court and High Court the courts awarded a reasonable contribution to costs based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties – see Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149.
In Holden the court stated “...a court [or Tribunal] should not forget the ultimate question or overlook the principles which underlie. There is wood as well as the trees. The ultimate question always remains: What is a reasonable contribution in these particular circumstances?”
The leading text by Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5 states: The Tribunal may also order a party to pay the reasonable costs of any other party to the proceedings ... The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal referring to the factors set out in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 148 – 149. What is considered “reasonable contribution” to a successful party’s costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 percent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40-70 per cent of actual costs (Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd at 149-150).
In this case, counsel for the respondents says that the application and submissions were lengthy and therefore involved a considerable amount of time for reading and for effective preparation to refute. In line with the principles, the Tribunal should award two-thirds of the actual legal costs incurred in the proceedings.
I agree.
Section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the successful party on matters in connection with the proceedings, and I am satisfied the legal costs incurred by the respondents totalling $10,378.14 to be in connection with the proceedings against which the two-thirds principle applies.
Price Baker Berridge’s time records outline the work done for the fees charged for the first case conference hearing, filing of statement of defence and the substantive hearing in November 2024.
Following Holden, I consider an award of costs of $6,918.76 being two-thirds of the total costs of $10,378.14 appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Even with two-thirds of legal costs awarded in favour of the respondents, they still carry the remaining one-third costs which were necessitated by the applicant bringing the proceedings in the first place.
I therefore make an order for the applicant to pay costs of $6,918.76 to the respondents.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9052404 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9052404 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions