What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9057984 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must immediately pay Body Corporate 378536

How much money was awarded in case 9057984?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9057984?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9057984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11709013-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9057984 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must immediately pay Body Corporate 378536

How much money was awarded in case 9057984?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9057984?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9057984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11709013-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9057984 — Smoke alarms

Order

[The party] must immediately pay Body Corporate 378536 $6,788.42 for its costs.
Price Baker Berridge’s time-attendance records must not be published.

Reasons

This is an application for costs in respect to the body corporate’s successful application for orders that Mr Kellerman refrain from altering his unit’s front door lock or compromising the unit’s fire control system.
At the hearing on 14 March 2025, Conall MacFadyen of Price Baker Berridge Lawyers appeared for the body corporate.
Mr Kellerman attended the hearing by telephone. The earlier “levies” application
This application (I shall refer to it as “the breach claim”) was heard together with an earlier application, which was before me again for rehearing by the body corporate against Mr Kellerman, being file number 9047264. I shall refer to that earlier claim as “the levies claim”.
That earlier levies claim was mainly for levies but also included claims for the body corporate’s expenses for Mr Kellerman’s alleged breaches of the body corporate rules. In that case, Mr Kellerman accepted liability for body corporate’s on-charges for five callouts to LA Fire Systems to attend to Mr Kellerman’s unit’s smoke alarm.
However, Mr Kellerman put the body corporate to the proof on various other alleged body corporate rule breaches including - relevantly for this costs decision - a claim that he went barefoot in the common area.
In respect to the going barefoot rule, in its original decision, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for three reasons: a. The body corporate did not provide evidence to prove the breach. b. The “rule” was not a rule at all. c. The source rule, rule 3(d) of the Body Corporate Operation rule was ultra vires.
At the 14 March 2025 rehearing consideration and rehearing, the Tribunal granted the body corporate’s application for a rehearing in respect to the third reason, but not the other reasons. The Tribunal having granted the rehearing application, reheard the matter and vacated its finding that the rule 3(d) was ultra vires. Importantly, for this costs decision, the decision dismissing the claim for Mr Kellerman going barefoot was unchanged. It was only the reasons and the ultra vires declaration that were altered.
It remains the case that the body corporate were not successful in proving its claim that Mr Kellerman breached a valid body corporate rule. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot grant the body corporate costs under s 127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 because it was not proven that Mr Kellerman committed a “wilful or negligent act or omission...or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules”. Body corporate’s submissions on costs
The body corporate claims a total of $8,615.40 for its costs.
Mr MacFadyen filed written submissions in support of the claim and cited binding authority for how the Tribunal must approach such a claim for costs. 1
Mr MacFadyen submits: 2 1 Godoy & Anor v Body Corporate No 164980 HC Auckland M 1906-98; Body Corporate 331094 v Smith [2015) NZDC 17745.
Similarly, the High Court in Godoy & Godoy v Body Corporate 164980 endorsed the recovery of solicitor/client costs under s 34 of the Unit Titles Act 1972, which mirrors s 127 of the Act. Fisher J held that under s 34 of the Unit Titles Act 1972, a body corporate can recover from an owner any expense incurred in taking statutorily authorised steps made necessary by that owner's breach of a rule, including indemnity costs, where there was no basis for denying recovery of that sum. Discussion
I agree with Mr MacFadyen submissions in respect to the legal principles.
I have reviewed Price Baker Berridge’s time attendance records and considered whether they are reasonable. The work undertaken was reasonably necessary. The fees are reasonable in terms of rule 9.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules. The submissions and counsel’s assistance reflected preparation in line with the fees claimed. The fees claimed are reasonable.
However, some of the work claimed for relates to the rehearing application which concerned the alleged “going barefoot” breach that was not proved against Mr Kellerman. That work cannot be claimed under s 127 and must be deducted from the costs claimed.
I have calculated the amount of work done on the going barefoot matter from Price Baker Berridge’s time-attendance records (to be sent to the parties separately) as follows: a.Narrations that refer only to the rehearing (highlighted in yellow in the time-attendance record sheet). The total amount including GST is $759.00 b.Narrations that appeared likely to involve both the levies claim and the breach claim – highlighted in green – are deducted at the rate of 50 percent. The total amount including GST is $882.63. c.The costs submission time attendances are pro-rated at the rate of 77 per cent – highlighted in teal. 77 per cent is arrived at because: leaving out the costs claimed for preparing the costs claim, the Tribunal granted 77.77 per cent of the costs ordered. Applying 22.22 per cent, the total amount is $185.35 including GST. d.The total amount to be deducted from the costs sought is $1,826.98. 2 Paragraph 6 of the body corporate’s costs submissions dated 28 March 2025. Footnote omitted.
The total costs the body corporate claims are $8,615.40. $1,826.98 is deducted.
The Tribunal orders Mr Kellerman to pay the body corporate $6,788.42 for its costs.
Price Baker Berridge’s timesheets are not to be published because they may contain commercially sensitive material.
Copies of the annotated timesheet are to be sent to the parties separately.

Reasons

This is an application for costs in respect to the body corporate’s successful application for orders that Mr Kellerman refrain from altering his unit’s front door lock or compromising the unit’s fire control system.

At the hearing on 14 March 2025, Conall MacFadyen of Price Baker Berridge Lawyers appeared for the body corporate.

Mr Kellerman attended the hearing by telephone. The earlier “levies” application

This application (I shall refer to it as “the breach claim”) was heard together with an earlier application, which was before me again for rehearing by the body corporate against Mr Kellerman, being file number 9047264. I shall refer to that earlier claim as “the levies claim”.

That earlier levies claim was mainly for levies but also included claims for the body corporate’s expenses for Mr Kellerman’s alleged breaches of the body corporate rules. In that case, Mr Kellerman accepted liability for body corporate’s on-charges for five callouts to LA Fire Systems to attend to Mr Kellerman’s unit’s smoke alarm.

However, Mr Kellerman put the body corporate to the proof on various other alleged body corporate rule breaches including - relevantly for this costs decision - a claim that he went barefoot in the common area.

In respect to the going barefoot rule, in its original decision, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for three reasons: a. The body corporate did not provide evidence to prove the breach. b. The “rule” was not a rule at all. c. The source rule, rule 3(d) of the Body Corporate Operation rule was ultra vires.

At the 14 March 2025 rehearing consideration and rehearing, the Tribunal granted the body corporate’s application for a rehearing in respect to the third reason, but not the other reasons. The Tribunal having granted the rehearing application, reheard the matter and vacated its finding that the rule 3(d) was ultra vires. Importantly, for this costs decision, the decision dismissing the claim for Mr Kellerman going barefoot was unchanged. It was only the reasons and the ultra vires declaration that were altered.

It remains the case that the body corporate were not successful in proving its claim that Mr Kellerman breached a valid body corporate rule. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot grant the body corporate costs under s 127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 because it was not proven that Mr Kellerman committed a “wilful or negligent act or omission...or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules”. Body corporate’s submissions on costs

The body corporate claims a total of $8,615.40 for its costs.

Mr MacFadyen filed written submissions in support of the claim and cited binding authority for how the Tribunal must approach such a claim for costs. 1

Mr MacFadyen submits: 2 1 Godoy & Anor v Body Corporate No 164980 HC Auckland M 1906-98; Body Corporate 331094 v Smith [2015) NZDC 17745.

Similarly, the High Court in Godoy & Godoy v Body Corporate 164980 endorsed the recovery of solicitor/client costs under s 34 of the Unit Titles Act 1972, which mirrors s 127 of the Act. Fisher J held that under s 34 of the Unit Titles Act 1972, a body corporate can recover from an owner any expense incurred in taking statutorily authorised steps made necessary by that owner's breach of a rule, including indemnity costs, where there was no basis for denying recovery of that sum. Discussion

I agree with Mr MacFadyen submissions in respect to the legal principles.

I have reviewed Price Baker Berridge’s time attendance records and considered whether they are reasonable. The work undertaken was reasonably necessary. The fees are reasonable in terms of rule 9.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules. The submissions and counsel’s assistance reflected preparation in line with the fees claimed. The fees claimed are reasonable.

However, some of the work claimed for relates to the rehearing application which concerned the alleged “going barefoot” breach that was not proved against Mr Kellerman. That work cannot be claimed under s 127 and must be deducted from the costs claimed.

I have calculated the amount of work done on the going barefoot matter from Price Baker Berridge’s time-attendance records (to be sent to the parties separately) as follows: a.Narrations that refer only to the rehearing (highlighted in yellow in the time-attendance record sheet). The total amount including GST is $759.00 b.Narrations that appeared likely to involve both the levies claim and the breach claim – highlighted in green – are deducted at the rate of 50 percent. The total amount including GST is $882.63. c.The costs submission time attendances are pro-rated at the rate of 77 per cent – highlighted in teal. 77 per cent is arrived at because: leaving out the costs claimed for preparing the costs claim, the Tribunal granted 77.77 per cent of the costs ordered. Applying 22.22 per cent, the total amount is $185.35 including GST. d.The total amount to be deducted from the costs sought is $1,826.98. 2 Paragraph 6 of the body corporate’s costs submissions dated 28 March 2025. Footnote omitted.

The total costs the body corporate claims are $8,615.40. $1,826.98 is deducted.

The Tribunal orders Mr Kellerman to pay the body corporate $6,788.42 for its costs.

Price Baker Berridge’s timesheets are not to be published because they may contain commercially sensitive material.

Copies of the annotated timesheet are to be sent to the parties separately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9057984 — Smoke alarms in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9057984 — Smoke alarms in Auckland Central, 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