What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9056125 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that Digital Media Marketing NZ Limited’s

How much money was awarded in case 9056125?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056125?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056125?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10906305-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9056125 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that Digital Media Marketing NZ Limited’s

How much money was awarded in case 9056125?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056125?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056125?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10906305-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9056125 — Unit Titles

Order

The Tribunal declares that Digital Media Marketing NZ Limited’s proposed signage for Immigration Advisers Tower at 71 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010 as depicted in National Signs Limited’s mock-up (Version 4, Sign 1, and Sign 2 dated 30 September 2024), is in accordance with rule 5 of the Body Corporate Operational Rules as amended.
The Tribunal approves the proposed signage as if the body corporate chairperson had approved the proposed signage under rule 5.3.1.
The body corporate committee is given until 5:00pm Friday 11 October 2024 to confirm whether it prefers the signage to be as in Sign 1 and Sign 2 or that the signage be as in Sign 2 with similar signage to Sign 2 on the pillar to the other side of the lift shaft.

Reasons

Vendana Rai attended the hearing for the applicant.
Dwayne Kemp attended the hearing for the respondent.
The applicant has naming rights for the building. It seeks orders enabling it to proceed with installing its signage on the exterior of the building.
The body corporate operational rules 1 relevantly provide: 5 Naming rights
1The owner of Unit 6A shall own the naming rights for the building to the exclusion of the other principal unit owners (the “Naming Rights”).
2All costs associated with the provision of signage relating to the Naming Rights shall be the responsibility of the owner of Unit 6A.
3In conjunction with the Naming Rights the owner of Unit 6A shall be permitted to:
3.1 erect signage on the exterior of the building, provided that any signs do not impinge upon the light or view of the other unit owners and do not interfere with the rights of the other owners, and provided further that such signage is not injurious to the reputation of the building. The body corporate chairman shall be required to approve the proposed signage provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if it is in accordance with these rules.
3.2 have access to the exterior of the building at all reasonable times for the purpose of erecting, operating, illuminating, servicing, maintaining, repairing and replacing signage, provided that such access does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the building by any other owners or their tenants or invitees.
3.3 assign, transfer, lease or licence any other person to exercise the signage rights under these rules, provided that the ownership of the Naming Rights shall remain with the owner of Unit 6A.
4The body corporate shall not unreasonably interfere with the owner of Unit 6A exercising the Naming Rights.
The applicant purchased Unit 6A in May of 2022 and has been discussing its intended signage with the body corporate committee for some time.
The applicant instructed counsel who wrote to the body corporate on its behalf on 15 September 2023, 10 October 2023, and 23 February 2024.
The applicant says the body corporate committee has not responded to its counsels’ correspondence and filed these proceedings on 12 July 2024. 1 As amended by resolution of the body corporate on 10 June 2015.
The applicant wants to use install signage to the building’s exterior but has been receptive to the body corporate committees input. For example, the committee asked the applicant not to place its signage on the level of the penthouse apartments and applicants have agreed to that.
The applicant’s latest signage proposal is a professionally created design that has been mocked up in two images dated 30 September 2024. 2
This proposal is sufficient to consider whether it complies with rule 5. Under rule
3.1, the signage must: a. not impinge upon the light or view of the other unit owners; b. not interfere with the rights of the other owners; and c. must not be injurious to the reputation of the building.
I am satisfied that the proposed signage is in accordance with the rule 5.3.1. Consequently, the body corporate chairperson must approve the proposed signage and must not unreasonably withhold approval.
Mr Kemp could not point to anything within the rules that would justify the chairperson refusing to approve the proposed signage. I am satisfied that the body corporate chairperson must approve the signage and it would be unreasonable for the chairperson to withhold their approval.
I am going to make a declaration that the proposed signage is approved rather than order the chairperson to do so. 3 The rules will continue to apply as if the chairperson had approved the proposal.
Mr Kemp invited the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing for at least two weeks so that the parties could further discuss the proposed signage. I was not prepared to adjourn the matter again given the that it has taken over two years to get to this point and would lead to unnecessary churn in the Tribunal.
I stood the matter down for 25 minutes for the parties to discuss an agreed outcome, but an agreement was not reached. Mr Kemp confirmed he suggested the main sign be reduced by 20 percent in size. Ms Rai said that would not be acceptable because the signage has been carefully designed to fit the two panels and a 20 percent reduction would make the design ungainly.
However, Ms Rai (quite reasonably) indicated the applicant remains open to the alternative option of putting its signage only on the vertical lift pillars as shown in Sign 2 (on one of the pillars) and not putting it on the two panels near the top of the building. Mr Kemp said he did not have authority to agree to that without consulting with the rest of the committee, which would take one week. Ms Rai said the applicant was content to give the body corporate that period of time to consider the options. 2 By National Sign Limited, Version.04. 3 Under s 78(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and s 171(3A)(c) of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
Mr Kemp says the committee and advise the applicant of its preferred option within a week. I shall make an order for that.

Order

The Tribunal declares that Digital Media Marketing NZ Limited’s proposed signage for Immigration Advisers Tower at 71 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010 as depicted in National Signs Limited’s mock-up (Version 4, Sign 1, and Sign 2 dated 30 September 2024), is in accordance with rule 5 of the Body Corporate Operational Rules as amended.
The Tribunal approves the proposed signage as if the body corporate chairperson had approved the proposed signage under rule 5.3.1.
The body corporate committee is given until 5:00pm Friday 11 October 2024 to confirm whether it prefers the signage to be as in Sign 1 and Sign 2 or that the signage be as in Sign 2 with similar signage to Sign 2 on the pillar to the other side of the lift shaft.

Reasons

Vendana Rai attended the hearing for the applicant.
Dwayne Kemp attended the hearing for the respondent.
The applicant has naming rights for the building. It seeks orders enabling it to proceed with installing its signage on the exterior of the building.
The body corporate operational rules 1 relevantly provide: 5 Naming rights
1The owner of Unit 6A shall own the naming rights for the building to the exclusion of the other principal unit owners (the “Naming Rights”).
2All costs associated with the provision of signage relating to the Naming Rights shall be the responsibility of the owner of Unit 6A.
3In conjunction with the Naming Rights the owner of Unit 6A shall be permitted to:
3.1 erect signage on the exterior of the building, provided that any signs do not impinge upon the light or view of the other unit owners and do not interfere with the rights of the other owners, and provided further that such signage is not injurious to the reputation of the building. The body corporate chairman shall be required to approve the proposed signage provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if it is in accordance with these rules.
3.2 have access to the exterior of the building at all reasonable times for the purpose of erecting, operating, illuminating, servicing, maintaining, repairing and replacing signage, provided that such access does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the building by any other owners or their tenants or invitees.
3.3 assign, transfer, lease or licence any other person to exercise the signage rights under these rules, provided that the ownership of the Naming Rights shall remain with the owner of Unit 6A.
4The body corporate shall not unreasonably interfere with the owner of Unit 6A exercising the Naming Rights.
The applicant purchased Unit 6A in May of 2022 and has been discussing its intended signage with the body corporate committee for some time.
The applicant instructed counsel who wrote to the body corporate on its behalf on 15 September 2023, 10 October 2023, and 23 February 2024.
The applicant says the body corporate committee has not responded to its counsels’ correspondence and filed these proceedings on 12 July 2024. 1 As amended by resolution of the body corporate on 10 June 2015.
The applicant wants to use install signage to the building’s exterior but has been receptive to the body corporate committees input. For example, the committee asked the applicant not to place its signage on the level of the penthouse apartments and applicants have agreed to that.
The applicant’s latest signage proposal is a professionally created design that has been mocked up in two images dated 30 September 2024. 2
This proposal is sufficient to consider whether it complies with rule 5. Under rule
3.1, the signage must: a. not impinge upon the light or view of the other unit owners; b. not interfere with the rights of the other owners; and c. must not be injurious to the reputation of the building.
I am satisfied that the proposed signage is in accordance with the rule 5.3.1. Consequently, the body corporate chairperson must approve the proposed signage and must not unreasonably withhold approval.
Mr Kemp could not point to anything within the rules that would justify the chairperson refusing to approve the proposed signage. I am satisfied that the body corporate chairperson must approve the signage and it would be unreasonable for the chairperson to withhold their approval.
I am going to make a declaration that the proposed signage is approved rather than order the chairperson to do so. 3 The rules will continue to apply as if the chairperson had approved the proposal.
Mr Kemp invited the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing for at least two weeks so that the parties could further discuss the proposed signage. I was not prepared to adjourn the matter again given the that it has taken over two years to get to this point and would lead to unnecessary churn in the Tribunal.
I stood the matter down for 25 minutes for the parties to discuss an agreed outcome, but an agreement was not reached. Mr Kemp confirmed he suggested the main sign be reduced by 20 percent in size. Ms Rai said that would not be acceptable because the signage has been carefully designed to fit the two panels and a 20 percent reduction would make the design ungainly.
However, Ms Rai (quite reasonably) indicated the applicant remains open to the alternative option of putting its signage only on the vertical lift pillars as shown in Sign 2 (on one of the pillars) and not putting it on the two panels near the top of the building. Mr Kemp said he did not have authority to agree to that without consulting with the rest of the committee, which would take one week. Ms Rai said the applicant was content to give the body corporate that period of time to consider the options. 2 By National Sign Limited, Version.04. 3 Under s 78(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and s 171(3A)(c) of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
Mr Kemp says the committee and advise the applicant of its preferred option within a week. I shall make an order for that.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056125 — Unit Titles in Grafton, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056125 — Unit Titles in Grafton, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions