What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9056684?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ respective claims for costs are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9056684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056684?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11845509-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9056684?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ respective claims for costs are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9056684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056684?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11845509-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9056684 — Unit Titles

Order

ON COSTS

The parties’ respective claims for costs are dismissed.
Costs to lie where they fall.

Reasons

The substantive application was withdrawn on 19 February 2025.
Counsel for the applicant indicated that the parties wish to be heard on costs.
I directed that the issue of costs is to be decided on the papers.
Both parties have now filed submissions seeking substantial legal costs against each other.
The general principle is costs follow the event. This means that the party that lost should pay the costs of the party that won.
The Supreme Court in Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board [2006] 3 NZLR 523 at [19] made clear that the “loser, and only the loser, pays”, unless there are exceptional reasons.
The starting point lies in identifying which party is the “loser” in this case.
In the Memorandum of Counsel for the Applicant dated 18 February 2025, the applicant advised that remediation works are proceeding at the Body Corporate by agreement of both parties and the underlying issues that led to the applicant bringing these proceedings are now resolved.
Counsel advised that only the issue of costs was unresolved.
The applicant suggests that if costs cannot be resolved within 10 working days from the date of the memorandum, that the applicant will file a memorandum as to costs, with the respondent to file a memorandum in response within 5 working days of the receipt of the applicant’s memorandum. It is suggested that the Tribunal deal with the issue of costs on the papers.
I then made an order withdrawing the application, along with timetabling directions for submissions on costs.
With the withdrawal of the claim, no substantive determination has been made by the Tribunal on the claim. Without a judicial determination, there is simply no basis for me to identify which party is the “loser” in this case.
The interim orders made in the proceedings were made by consent and primarily to preserve the status quo and on how remediation works are to be undertaken in accordance with acceptable building practice and ensure compliance with the Building Code.
Without a substantive hearing, I am unable to decide who won and who lost ultimately. Consequently, I am unable to decide on what event that costs should follow.
Even if my previous directions and interim orders may be regarded as having favoured one party more than the other, I do not consider that is enough in my current quest of finding who had won and who had lost. The result is the starting point, and the result appears to be a solid draw!
There must be a substantive decision on the merits, or at least a prospective decision after hearing which likely favours one party over the other, that triggers costs. Where the parties have reached a settlement between themselves prior to hearing of the case, I do not consider that I can be asked to decide who won and who lost.
Mediation and agreements are primary methods and focus of resolutions at the Tenancy Tribunal on claims filed within its jurisdiction, whether they are under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) or the Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).
Pursuant to section 87 RTA, applications filed at the Tribunal are generally referred it to a Tenancy Mediator unless, in terms of any regulations made under the RTA (or UTA) or of any directions given by the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator, the application is of a class that is to be referred directly to the Tribunal for determination.
This application filed by the applicant under the UTA here is not of a class that is to be referred directly to the Tribunal for determination.
On cases referred to mediation under section 87, section 88 RTA provides that the primary function of a Tenancy Mediator is to attempt to bring the parties to the dispute to an agreed settlement.
Where an agreed settlement is reached, the Tenancy Mediator can make any order or orders that the Tribunal could have made if the application had come before it.
Section 176 UTA stipulates that sections 87 and 88 RTA apply with all necessary modifications in respect of the hearing and determination of a unit title dispute by a Tenancy Tribunal.
The fact that the underlying issue surrounding this matter is ultimately resolved by agreement between the parties without need for substantive hearing underscores the importance of Tribunal’s role in facilitating and encouraging resolutions by way of negotiations and amicable settlements, including upholding the principles of “give and take”.
Settlements will be hindered if, upon an amicable settlement being reached, parties are then drawn to spilt hairs between themselves on which party would have won and which party would have lost if the matter had gone to an adjudicated hearing, to see who finally gets the spoils of costs.
With those factors in mind, I find myself in agreement with the letter written by counsel for the body corporate dated 5 March 2025 to the applicant’s counsel proposing that costs lie as they fall.
I disagree with the applicant’s claim that the orders made by the Tribunal amount to almost complete success in relation to the application. The interim orders were made by agreement of both parties in the hope that the issue could be resolved quickly and without lengthy legal proceedings or cost.
I have made no adjudicated order which state that the remediation work initially proposed by the body corporate was inadequate to meet the body corporate’s responsibilities under the UTA and Building Act. I understand from counsel’s letter that a licensed building practitioner has since determined the work does not require a building consent, which is consistent with the body corporate’s initial position and the advice it relied on from the Wellington City Council and tradespeople it consulted.
This indicates that the matter could have been resolved outside of the Tribunal if the parties had a reasonable opportunity to do so by negotiation through their lawyers. It was unnecessary to resort to a Tribunal hearing without having attempted to do so.
This matter ultimately involved only two brief teleconferences. No matters of legal substance were raised at either of them.
For the record, counsel for the applicant only attended one of these two teleconferences. Counsel for the applicant failed to attend the teleconference on 3 December 2024, and no explanation was given for the non-attendance.
This resulted in unnecessary costs for the body corporate for preparation for and attendance at the teleconference. Further costs were incurred by the body corporate to then explain to the applicant by email matters which were to be discussed at the teleconference.
The length of these teleconferences and the substance of them shows that the claim was not entirely necessary, and this dispute did not ultimately require Tribunal involvement to be resolved.
Overall, I am satisfied that the body corporate has engaged positively throughout the proceedings. The body corporate committee appears to have worked towards ensuring the remedial work is completed and has sought legal advice on the UTA.
That said, I return to the crux and starting point in considering who gets costs.
Given that neither party has won, and neither party has lost, costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056684 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056684 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions