What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9052824 about?

The tribunal order states: Luxon Properties Ltd and Phillip James Bryant & Alistair Robert Davidson as

How much money was awarded in case 9052824?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9052824?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9052824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13835247-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9052824 about?

The tribunal order states: Luxon Properties Ltd and Phillip James Bryant & Alistair Robert Davidson as

How much money was awarded in case 9052824?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9052824?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9052824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13835247-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Lake Tekapo, Lake Tekapo Tenancy Tribunal Case 9052824 — Unit Titles

Reasons

The applicants filed an application against BC 398644 seeking reimbursement of special levies paid to the Body Corporate.

The matter was first heard in the Tenancy Tribunal on 3 April 2025. An Order was made on 19 May 2025, setting aside the special levy paid by the applicants. The Body Corporate appealed.

The District Court allowed the appeal and referred the application back to the Tribunal.

The matter was heard on 2 March, and an Order made on 5 May 2026. The application was dismissed. Costs were reserved. Both parties have made submissions in respect of costs.

Should Costs be Awarded?

The Tribunal has a discretion to award costs where a party instructs Counsel (s 102(2)(b)).

The respondents seek costs under s 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Their application has been successful.

The Body Corporate seeks costs of $10,855.83 (being 2/3 rd of actual costs incurred of $16,283.75). The applicants submit an award of $4,000 to $4,800 is appropriate (being 40% of reasonable costs of $10,000 to $12,000).

The costs factors and principles set out extensively in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 1 apply to the discretion to award costs under this provision. Costs follow the event, and the usual principles therefore apply.

In BC v Ikeda, 2 DCJ Harrison noted that it was clear the Tribunal was bound to fix costs according to legal principle applicable in doing so and cannot seize upon a figure which appears to the adjudicator to be an appropriate amount.

His Honour referred with approval to the approach in French v Ryan, 3 that in assessing what a reasonable contribution to costs might be it is appropriate to consider the actual costs involved.

I consider it appropriate to award costs in this case.

I agree with the applicants that there needs to be deduction from the starting point of actual costs incurred because the Body Corporate has claimed for two Counsel at both Tribunal hearings. This is not a matter which would justify costs of two Counsel.

I have also reviewed the time records submitted with the costs claim. Some of the narrations are vague. In the context of this case, I find the reference to “drafting final judgment demand” unusual. I also accept the applicant’s submission of duplication between authors working this file. I make a modest deduction for those matters. I do not make any deduction for preparation work required for each hearing, given the lapse of time between hearings, it is inevitable that Counsel would have had to prepare twice.

Taking account of the matters at paragraphs 12 and 13 above, I consider an appropriate starting point for reasonable costs to be $14,283.75

I consider this an appropriate case to award 50% of reasonable costs being $7,141.86. As a cross check for reasonableness, I note that this is 44% of actual costs incurred. This is within the range of 40% to 70% endorsed in Holden v Architectural Finishes, and reflects the factors referred to in that decision (and 1 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 2 [2020] NZDC 3669 3 HM Taumaunu DCJ, 29 November 2012, CIV-2012-004-000711. summarised conveniently in Constable v Cooper & Co.) 4 In this regard, I accept the applicant’s submission there is nothing in the procedural history of this matter which justified a costs award at the upper end of the range, and the Body Corporate did not provide any analysis which would support costs at a higher level.

Order

Luxon Properties Ltd and Phillip James Bryant & Alistair Robert Davidson as Trustees of the PJ Bryant Family Trust must pay BC 398644 $7,141.86 for costs in relation to this application.

Reasons

The applicants filed an application against BC 398644 seeking reimbursement of special levies paid to the Body Corporate.
The matter was first heard in the Tenancy Tribunal on 3 April 2025. An Order was made on 19 May 2025, setting aside the special levy paid by the applicants. The Body Corporate appealed.
The District Court allowed the appeal and referred the application back to the Tribunal.
The matter was heard on 2 March, and an Order made on 5 May 2026. The application was dismissed. Costs were reserved. Both parties have made submissions in respect of costs.

Should Costs be Awarded?

The Tribunal has a discretion to award costs where a party instructs Counsel (s 102(2)(b)).
The respondents seek costs under s 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Their application has been successful.
The Body Corporate seeks costs of $10,855.83 (being 2/3 rd of actual costs incurred of $16,283.75). The applicants submit an award of $4,000 to $4,800 is appropriate (being 40% of reasonable costs of $10,000 to $12,000).
The costs factors and principles set out extensively in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 1 apply to the discretion to award costs under this provision. Costs follow the event, and the usual principles therefore apply.
In BC v Ikeda, 2 DCJ Harrison noted that it was clear the Tribunal was bound to fix costs according to legal principle applicable in doing so and cannot seize upon a figure which appears to the adjudicator to be an appropriate amount.
His Honour referred with approval to the approach in French v Ryan, 3 that in assessing what a reasonable contribution to costs might be it is appropriate to consider the actual costs involved.
I consider it appropriate to award costs in this case.
I agree with the applicants that there needs to be deduction from the starting point of actual costs incurred because the Body Corporate has claimed for two Counsel at both Tribunal hearings. This is not a matter which would justify costs of two Counsel.
I have also reviewed the time records submitted with the costs claim. Some of the narrations are vague. In the context of this case, I find the reference to “drafting final judgment demand” unusual. I also accept the applicant’s submission of duplication between authors working this file. I make a modest deduction for those matters. I do not make any deduction for preparation work required for each hearing, given the lapse of time between hearings, it is inevitable that Counsel would have had to prepare twice.
Taking account of the matters at paragraphs 12 and 13 above, I consider an appropriate starting point for reasonable costs to be $14,283.75
I consider this an appropriate case to award 50% of reasonable costs being $7,141.86. As a cross check for reasonableness, I note that this is 44% of actual costs incurred. This is within the range of 40% to 70% endorsed in Holden v Architectural Finishes, and reflects the factors referred to in that decision (and 1 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 2 [2020] NZDC 3669 3 HM Taumaunu DCJ, 29 November 2012, CIV-2012-004-000711. summarised conveniently in Constable v Cooper & Co.) 4 In this regard, I accept the applicant’s submission there is nothing in the procedural history of this matter which justified a costs award at the upper end of the range, and the Body Corporate did not provide any analysis which would support costs at a higher level.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9052824 — Unit Titles in Lake Tekapo, Lake Tekapo

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9052824 — Unit Titles in Lake Tekapo, Lake Tekapo

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should Costs be Awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should Costs be Awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions