What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9054704 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay on enforcement is now lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 9054704?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9054704?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196166-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9054704 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay on enforcement is now lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 9054704?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9054704?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196166-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9054704 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay on enforcement is now lifted.

Reasons

On 28 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for [The party] and [The party] (the respondents) to pay the Body Corporate 361791 (the applicant) $7,495.00 for debt collection costs, legal fees, Section 124 costs, interest, an appearance fee, and the filing fee.
On 3 April 2025, the respondents filed a rehearing application on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. They argued that: • The debt had been settled, so only legal fees and related expenses should be charged. • Debt collection costs were unnecessary and avoidable, as settlement occurred before proceedings began. • The Body Corporate was informed that more time was needed to settle, but gave no response. • After settlement, it was revealed that legal action had already commenced. • They offered to pay NZ $3,000 as a compromise to settle the matter.
A hearing to determine the rehearing application was scheduled for 25 June 2025 and held via teleconference. While the Body Corporate’s representative attended, the respondents could not be contacted due to technical limitations in the Tribunal’s teleconferencing system, which prevented calls to their overseas location. As a result, the Tribunal proposed to determine the application based on the written materials and invited the respondents to submit further written submissions. This was agreed by the parties.
The respondents filed written submissions, raising the following key points: • They assert that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • No money is currently owed to the Body Corporate, apart from the disputed legal fee. • The legal costs are excessive and unjustified, exceeding the original Body Corporate levies owed. • The Body Corporate acted unreasonably by incurring legal and debt collection costs when they had already communicated their intention to pay. • The legal costs could have been avoided had the Body Corporate acknowledged earlier communication regarding delayed payment. • The respondents dispute the Body Corporate’s ongoing demands for payment through its lawyers. • Their serious medical conditions and financial hardship had not been adequately considered. • They are under significant stress and have listed the property for sale from overseas (Malaysia), as they can no longer manage it. • The respondent criticises the Tribunal adjudicator for awarding more than what was originally claimed. • They reiterate their willingness to settle the matter by paying NZD $3,000+ in two instalments. • They request compassion and fairness, and urge the Body Corporate to resolve the matter amicably. • They emphasise time, health, and emotional toll, urging resolution without prolonged proceedings.
The applicant opposed the rehearing application. The Body Corporate argued that: • A waiver or reduction of section 124 costs would be unfair to the other unit owners at the development, who should not bear the financial burden of the respondents’ failure to pay their levies on time and for the legal costs incurred in these proceedings. The request for a waiver or reduction was rejected. • The respondents’ settlement proposal demonstrates that they accept liability for the debt but disagree with the total amount awarded. Such a disagreement is not a valid ground for rehearing. The respondents’ settlement proposal was rejected. • The Tribunal’s order of 28 March 2025 provided an analysis of costs and the validity of them which is an objective test, as confirmed in BC346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645. This is not a subjective test of what the respondents consider a reasonable amount. The work was necessary, and costs have been incurred by the respondents for attendances of recovery of outstanding levies owed by the respondents to the Body Corporate. • There are no proper grounds or submissions made by the respondents that would change the outcome.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome. See section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”); section 96(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The threshold for granting a rehearing is high. As confirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, this provision is designed to address procedural errors or situations where new evidence, previously unavailable, could have materially affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the respondents have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Settlement of levies and hardship due to illness: The respondents argue that they have since paid all outstanding levies and that their medical circumstances and financial hardship should be taken into account. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the respondents’ health conditions and acknowledges the stress they are under, personal hardship is not a legal ground for rehearing. The Tribunal is bound by the UTA, which imposes strict liability on unit owners for costs associated with debt recovery under section 124. The fact that levies and penalties were subsequently paid does not retrospectively invalidate the costs lawfully incurred by the Body Corporate prior to payment.
Challenge to the quantum of legal fees and debt collection costs: The respondents contend that the legal fees and collection costs awarded are disproportionate and unfair. However, this argument was fully considered in the original hearing. The Tribunal applied section 124 UTA and the relevant case law (Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah, DC Auckland CIV2014-004-0120 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185), which confirm that reasonable enforcement costs are recoverable in full. This issue has already been determined, and a rehearing cannot be used to re-litigate the same dispute merely because the respondents disagree with the outcome.
Proposal to settle for $3,000: The respondents propose a compromise settlement payment of $3,000. While this may reflect their willingness to resolve the matter, it is not a legal ground for rehearing. A rehearing is not a forum for renegotiation; it is only available where a procedural error or new evidence exists. No such circumstances have been demonstrated.
Allegation of “double counting” and procedural unfairness: The respondents allege that the Tribunal’s original decision involved double counting of amounts. However, no new evidence has been provided to support this claim. This issue was either capable of being raised in the initial hearing or relates to the correctness of the Tribunal’s original decision, which should be addressed through an appeal, not a rehearing.
Ultimately, the respondents’ position amounts to a disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision. As established in McMillan, a rehearing will not be granted simply because a party is dissatisfied with the outcome or wishes for a different result. The respondents have not demonstrated: •Any procedural error at the original hearing; •Any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing and that could change the outcome; or •Any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The arguments raised instead relate to matters that were properly determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and the law. The appropriate avenue for challenging such matters is an appeal, not a rehearing.
The respondents have not met the statutory threshold for a rehearing under section 105 RTA and section 171 UTA. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the respondents’ health and financial concerns, these do not constitute legal grounds for rehearing. The application is therefore dismissed.
The original order of the Tribunal dated 28 March 2025 remains in full effect.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay on enforcement is now lifted.

Reasons

On 28 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for [The party] and [The party] (the respondents) to pay the Body Corporate 361791 (the applicant) $7,495.00 for debt collection costs, legal fees, Section 124 costs, interest, an appearance fee, and the filing fee.
On 3 April 2025, the respondents filed a rehearing application on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. They argued that: • The debt had been settled, so only legal fees and related expenses should be charged. • Debt collection costs were unnecessary and avoidable, as settlement occurred before proceedings began. • The Body Corporate was informed that more time was needed to settle, but gave no response. • After settlement, it was revealed that legal action had already commenced. • They offered to pay NZ $3,000 as a compromise to settle the matter.
A hearing to determine the rehearing application was scheduled for 25 June 2025 and held via teleconference. While the Body Corporate’s representative attended, the respondents could not be contacted due to technical limitations in the Tribunal’s teleconferencing system, which prevented calls to their overseas location. As a result, the Tribunal proposed to determine the application based on the written materials and invited the respondents to submit further written submissions. This was agreed by the parties.
The respondents filed written submissions, raising the following key points: • They assert that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • No money is currently owed to the Body Corporate, apart from the disputed legal fee. • The legal costs are excessive and unjustified, exceeding the original Body Corporate levies owed. • The Body Corporate acted unreasonably by incurring legal and debt collection costs when they had already communicated their intention to pay. • The legal costs could have been avoided had the Body Corporate acknowledged earlier communication regarding delayed payment. • The respondents dispute the Body Corporate’s ongoing demands for payment through its lawyers. • Their serious medical conditions and financial hardship had not been adequately considered. • They are under significant stress and have listed the property for sale from overseas (Malaysia), as they can no longer manage it. • The respondent criticises the Tribunal adjudicator for awarding more than what was originally claimed. • They reiterate their willingness to settle the matter by paying NZD $3,000+ in two instalments. • They request compassion and fairness, and urge the Body Corporate to resolve the matter amicably. • They emphasise time, health, and emotional toll, urging resolution without prolonged proceedings.
The applicant opposed the rehearing application. The Body Corporate argued that: • A waiver or reduction of section 124 costs would be unfair to the other unit owners at the development, who should not bear the financial burden of the respondents’ failure to pay their levies on time and for the legal costs incurred in these proceedings. The request for a waiver or reduction was rejected. • The respondents’ settlement proposal demonstrates that they accept liability for the debt but disagree with the total amount awarded. Such a disagreement is not a valid ground for rehearing. The respondents’ settlement proposal was rejected. • The Tribunal’s order of 28 March 2025 provided an analysis of costs and the validity of them which is an objective test, as confirmed in BC346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645. This is not a subjective test of what the respondents consider a reasonable amount. The work was necessary, and costs have been incurred by the respondents for attendances of recovery of outstanding levies owed by the respondents to the Body Corporate. • There are no proper grounds or submissions made by the respondents that would change the outcome.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome. See section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”); section 96(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The threshold for granting a rehearing is high. As confirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, this provision is designed to address procedural errors or situations where new evidence, previously unavailable, could have materially affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the respondents have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Settlement of levies and hardship due to illness: The respondents argue that they have since paid all outstanding levies and that their medical circumstances and financial hardship should be taken into account. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the respondents’ health conditions and acknowledges the stress they are under, personal hardship is not a legal ground for rehearing. The Tribunal is bound by the UTA, which imposes strict liability on unit owners for costs associated with debt recovery under section 124. The fact that levies and penalties were subsequently paid does not retrospectively invalidate the costs lawfully incurred by the Body Corporate prior to payment.
Challenge to the quantum of legal fees and debt collection costs: The respondents contend that the legal fees and collection costs awarded are disproportionate and unfair. However, this argument was fully considered in the original hearing. The Tribunal applied section 124 UTA and the relevant case law (Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah, DC Auckland CIV2014-004-0120 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185), which confirm that reasonable enforcement costs are recoverable in full. This issue has already been determined, and a rehearing cannot be used to re-litigate the same dispute merely because the respondents disagree with the outcome.
Proposal to settle for $3,000: The respondents propose a compromise settlement payment of $3,000. While this may reflect their willingness to resolve the matter, it is not a legal ground for rehearing. A rehearing is not a forum for renegotiation; it is only available where a procedural error or new evidence exists. No such circumstances have been demonstrated.
Allegation of “double counting” and procedural unfairness: The respondents allege that the Tribunal’s original decision involved double counting of amounts. However, no new evidence has been provided to support this claim. This issue was either capable of being raised in the initial hearing or relates to the correctness of the Tribunal’s original decision, which should be addressed through an appeal, not a rehearing.
Ultimately, the respondents’ position amounts to a disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision. As established in McMillan, a rehearing will not be granted simply because a party is dissatisfied with the outcome or wishes for a different result. The respondents have not demonstrated: •Any procedural error at the original hearing; •Any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing and that could change the outcome; or •Any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The arguments raised instead relate to matters that were properly determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and the law. The appropriate avenue for challenging such matters is an appeal, not a rehearing.
The respondents have not met the statutory threshold for a rehearing under section 105 RTA and section 171 UTA. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the respondents’ health and financial concerns, these do not constitute legal grounds for rehearing. The application is therefore dismissed.
The original order of the Tribunal dated 28 March 2025 remains in full effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054704 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054704 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.