What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9061604 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 561437 must pay [The party] $17,042.99

How much money was awarded in case 9061604?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9061604?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9061604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13766312-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9061604 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 561437 must pay [The party] $17,042.99

How much money was awarded in case 9061604?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9061604?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9061604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13766312-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Hataitai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9061604 — Unit Titles

Order

Body Corporate 561437 must pay [The party] $17,042.99 immediately, calculated as follows: Descriptions Costs (50% actual cost) Filing fee Total award To pay $16,542.99 $500.00 $17,042.99

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by the Applicant.
The background in this case can be summarised as follows:
On 29 November 2024, the unit owner, Ms Toomey, filed this application with the Tribunal. The application was reasonably extensive, but broadly relates to information being withheld and governance at the complex. 9061604 2
A hearing was scheduled for 27 March 2025. The Respondent appointed a representative, who requested that the hearing be adjourned, in order to prepare for the hearing. The adjournment was granted.
A case conference was convened on 20 May 2025. From that, the parties confirmed that there had been positive developments, and it was apparent that the parties were working toward a resolution of the dispute.
A further hearing was scheduled, but then adjourned in an order from 3 November 2025.
A further case conference was convened on 28 January 2026. It was agreed that a hearing should be scheduled to hear the dispute. That was scheduled for 17 March 2026.
On 16 March 2026, the Applicant filed a notice of discontinuance and an application for costs.
Timetabling was set for costs submissions filed, so the costs application to be determined on the papers.
Only submissions from the Applicant have been filed.

ANALYSIS

The mechanical provisions relating to the operation of the Tribunal, under the Unit Titles Act 2010, are found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 102 of the RTA relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” where any of the parties was presented by counsel. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.
It is unusual for a Tribunal or Court in New Zealand to award full indemnity costs against the losing party.
What is considered to be ‘reasonable costs’ will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan, in his reserved costs decision, held that: …the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution’. It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise…if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%,there is a feeling of some comfort… 9061604 3
The High Court confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs: a. The length of the hearing. b. The sum of money involved. c. The legal and factual complexity. d. Whether the argument lacking substance was advanced, and e. The degree of success achieved by the parties.
Similarly, in the judgment of David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms and Engineering Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 PRNZ 162, Tompkins J considered a costs issue where the party was represented, and held: In addition to the length of the hearing, matters such as the amount of money involved, the importance either to the parties or generally of the issues, monetary or non monetary, the legal and factual complexities, the amount of time required for effective preparation, the number and complexity of interlocutory applications and the likely or actual solicitor and client costs incurred, may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
I accept the submissions from the Applicant, that the usual position with a discontinuation of proceedings, is that costs are awarded, if the applicant achieves the outcome they were seeking from the proceeding. I accept that is the case here; certainly, the respondent has not provided submissions, disputing otherwise.
In this case, the applicant has incurred total legal costs relating to the proceeding of $33,085.97, and the respective invoiced amounts have been sent out. However, the applicant seeks an order at 50% of the actual cost, being an order of $16,542.99.
I have taken into consideration the factors noted above, and conclude as follows: a. The length of the hearing must be taken to consider the pre-hearing phase. There have been multiple engagements with the Tribunal, and I can see from the file that there has been extensive work undertaken between the parties, to try and resolve the dispute. b. My impression is that the issues at stake were of significant moment and sufficient to justify the proceeding. c. It is difficult to reach any conclusion as to the legal or factual complexity of the case, or whether any parties’ arguments were lacking substance, because I have not conducted a hearing on the substantive matters, so that must at this time be a reasonably neutral factor. d. I accept that as far as the applicant is concerned, there has been a high degree of success. 9061604 4
Ultimately, the applicant is seeking an order of half of the actual cost, which seems reasonable based on the information before the Tribunal, and is ordered.
The respondent must also pay the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.

Order

Body Corporate 561437 must pay [The party] $17,042.99 immediately, calculated as follows: Descriptions Costs (50% actual cost) Filing fee Total award To pay $16,542.99 $500.00 $17,042.99

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by the Applicant.
The background in this case can be summarised as follows:
On 29 November 2024, the unit owner, Ms Toomey, filed this application with the Tribunal. The application was reasonably extensive, but broadly relates to information being withheld and governance at the complex. 9061604 2
A hearing was scheduled for 27 March 2025. The Respondent appointed a representative, who requested that the hearing be adjourned, in order to prepare for the hearing. The adjournment was granted.
A case conference was convened on 20 May 2025. From that, the parties confirmed that there had been positive developments, and it was apparent that the parties were working toward a resolution of the dispute.
A further hearing was scheduled, but then adjourned in an order from 3 November 2025.
A further case conference was convened on 28 January 2026. It was agreed that a hearing should be scheduled to hear the dispute. That was scheduled for 17 March 2026.
On 16 March 2026, the Applicant filed a notice of discontinuance and an application for costs.
Timetabling was set for costs submissions filed, so the costs application to be determined on the papers.
Only submissions from the Applicant have been filed.

ANALYSIS

The mechanical provisions relating to the operation of the Tribunal, under the Unit Titles Act 2010, are found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 102 of the RTA relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” where any of the parties was presented by counsel. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.
It is unusual for a Tribunal or Court in New Zealand to award full indemnity costs against the losing party.
What is considered to be ‘reasonable costs’ will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 Justice McGechan, in his reserved costs decision, held that: …the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution’. It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise…if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%,there is a feeling of some comfort… 9061604 3
The High Court confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors are relevant to be considered when assessing costs: a. The length of the hearing. b. The sum of money involved. c. The legal and factual complexity. d. Whether the argument lacking substance was advanced, and e. The degree of success achieved by the parties.
Similarly, in the judgment of David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms and Engineering Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 PRNZ 162, Tompkins J considered a costs issue where the party was represented, and held: In addition to the length of the hearing, matters such as the amount of money involved, the importance either to the parties or generally of the issues, monetary or non monetary, the legal and factual complexities, the amount of time required for effective preparation, the number and complexity of interlocutory applications and the likely or actual solicitor and client costs incurred, may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
I accept the submissions from the Applicant, that the usual position with a discontinuation of proceedings, is that costs are awarded, if the applicant achieves the outcome they were seeking from the proceeding. I accept that is the case here; certainly, the respondent has not provided submissions, disputing otherwise.
In this case, the applicant has incurred total legal costs relating to the proceeding of $33,085.97, and the respective invoiced amounts have been sent out. However, the applicant seeks an order at 50% of the actual cost, being an order of $16,542.99.
I have taken into consideration the factors noted above, and conclude as follows: a. The length of the hearing must be taken to consider the pre-hearing phase. There have been multiple engagements with the Tribunal, and I can see from the file that there has been extensive work undertaken between the parties, to try and resolve the dispute. b. My impression is that the issues at stake were of significant moment and sufficient to justify the proceeding. c. It is difficult to reach any conclusion as to the legal or factual complexity of the case, or whether any parties’ arguments were lacking substance, because I have not conducted a hearing on the substantive matters, so that must at this time be a reasonably neutral factor. d. I accept that as far as the applicant is concerned, there has been a high degree of success. 9061604 4
Ultimately, the applicant is seeking an order of half of the actual cost, which seems reasonable based on the information before the Tribunal, and is ordered.
The respondent must also pay the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9061604 — Unit Titles in Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9061604 — Unit Titles in Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions