What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9053424 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs by the unit owners is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9053424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9053424?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9053424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11746821-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9053424 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs by the unit owners is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9053424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9053424?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9053424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11746821-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Albany, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9053424 — Unit Titles

Reasons

On 5 March 2025 I held a telephone directions conference with the parties on the unit owners’ application for a work order.

Counsel for the unit owners withdrew the application because the work orders sought relate to work that will be included in an application to the High Court for a repair scheme under section 74(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA).

Counsel for the unit owners made an application for costs. I therefore set a timetable for written submissions on costs. The hearing remained open until 24 April 2025.

I have received and have considered the submissions on costs filed by both parties.

The unit owners seek costs of $22,968.00 for expert expenses, the filing fee of $500.00, and legal costs of either $9,263.50 or $11,277.69.

Counsel for the body corporate opposes any costs being awarded. 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. Discussion

Costs follow the event. A successful party may be (and usually is) eligible for costs, an unsuccessful party usually not.

Here, the unit owners were not successful as parties; the application was withdrawn. While there were proceedings, there was no hearing of the substantive issues as the application was withdrawn. The Tribunal was not therefore called upon to consider the strength of the unit owners’ case or to determine any issues, all relevant matters for an award of costs.

Counsel for the unit owners has submitted that despite the application being withdrawn, they should be entitled to costs and there was no barrier to costs being awarded.

It would be most unusual for costs to be awarded to the applicant party on a withdrawn application in this jurisdiction.

On that basis the Tribunal makes no award of costs. This is a case where costs should lie where they fall at this stage or be addressed by the High Court as part of its consideration of the Body Corporate’s application for a scheme under section 74(2) UTA.

The unit owner applicants in this case, together with all the owners, constitute the body corporate. So, they will be included as part of the body corporate’s application for a scheme. Their specialist report fees can be considered as part of that application, or separately by the body corporate which might decide by resolution to levy all the unit owners to pay for those reports.

The Tribunal cannot award the filing fee because again, the application was not successful, it was withdrawn. Without a successful claim (in whole or in part) the Tribunal cannot award the filing fee - see section 102(4) RTA.

Order

The application for costs by the unit owners is dismissed.

Reasons

On 5 March 2025 I held a telephone directions conference with the parties on the unit owners’ application for a work order.
Counsel for the unit owners withdrew the application because the work orders sought relate to work that will be included in an application to the High Court for a repair scheme under section 74(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA).
Counsel for the unit owners made an application for costs. I therefore set a timetable for written submissions on costs. The hearing remained open until 24 April 2025.
I have received and have considered the submissions on costs filed by both parties.
The unit owners seek costs of $22,968.00 for expert expenses, the filing fee of $500.00, and legal costs of either $9,263.50 or $11,277.69.
Counsel for the body corporate opposes any costs being awarded. 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. Discussion
Costs follow the event. A successful party may be (and usually is) eligible for costs, an unsuccessful party usually not.
Here, the unit owners were not successful as parties; the application was withdrawn. While there were proceedings, there was no hearing of the substantive issues as the application was withdrawn. The Tribunal was not therefore called upon to consider the strength of the unit owners’ case or to determine any issues, all relevant matters for an award of costs.
Counsel for the unit owners has submitted that despite the application being withdrawn, they should be entitled to costs and there was no barrier to costs being awarded.
It would be most unusual for costs to be awarded to the applicant party on a withdrawn application in this jurisdiction.
On that basis the Tribunal makes no award of costs. This is a case where costs should lie where they fall at this stage or be addressed by the High Court as part of its consideration of the Body Corporate’s application for a scheme under section 74(2) UTA.
The unit owner applicants in this case, together with all the owners, constitute the body corporate. So, they will be included as part of the body corporate’s application for a scheme. Their specialist report fees can be considered as part of that application, or separately by the body corporate which might decide by resolution to levy all the unit owners to pay for those reports.
The Tribunal cannot award the filing fee because again, the application was not successful, it was withdrawn. Without a successful claim (in whole or in part) the Tribunal cannot award the filing fee - see section 102(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9053424 — Unit Titles in Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9053424 — Unit Titles in Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions