What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9055144 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 9055144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055144?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676425-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9055144 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 9055144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055144?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676425-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Melling, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 9055144 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.

Deon Van de Venter, Body Corporate Relationship Manager, and Anzelle Cloete, Body Corporate Team Leader attended by telephone for the applicant.

The respondent attended by telephone with Kirsty Willis as his representative.

The file has been noted with a question mark as to jurisdiction because the developments structure seems to be under the Companies Act 1993 rather than the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA).

UTA, s 171sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear UTA matters. That section relevantly states: 171 Jurisdiction of Tenancy Tribunals (1)Except as provided in this section, a Tenancy Tribunal (a Tribunal) constituted under section 67 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 has jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes arising between any persons of the kind listed in subsection (2) in relation to a unit title development (a unit title dispute). ... (2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1) are— (a) the owner of a principal unit or a former owner of a principal unit: ... (d) a body corporate: (da) a body corporate manager: ...

The UTA defines “unit title development” as meaning “the individual units and the common property comprising a stratum estate”.

A stratum estate is synonymous with a Unit Titles Act interest in land.

In this development, unit owners do not have a stratum estate.

The principal constituting document, Constitution of Homewood Flats Limited, does not refer to the UTA, it refers to the Companies Act 1993. The development is constituted under that Act.

I conclude, this arrangement is not one made under the UTA, and the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The parties indicated a willingness to resolve the issues they have by discussion and agreement. The Tribunal hopes that is successful.

If they cannot agree and a claim is still necessary, the Disputes Tribunal or the District Court may be suitable venues.

Given the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, I direct that the applicant’s filing fees are to be reimbursed to the applicant.