Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 9061784 — Tenancy dispute in Auckland, Auckland
Decided 10 Nov 2025 · Published 10 Nov 2025 · Application 9061784
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $48,002.89
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $47,502.89
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body Corporate Manager’s debt | $667.00 | Body Corporate Manager’s debt | |
| collection charges Section 124 costs including GST and disbursements | $34,308.70 | collection charges Section 124 costs including GST and disbursements | |
| hour x 1hr, plus GST | $310.50 | hour x 1hr, plus GST | |
| km | $81.00 | km | |
Order
- Jay Investments 2015 Limited must pay Body Corporate 351599 $47,502.89 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Overdue Levy$9,682.89 Body Corporate Manager’s debt collection charges $667.00 Section 124 costs including GST and disbursements $34,308.70 Appearance at hearing ($270.00 per hour x 1hr, plus GST) $310.50 Travel (69km round trip at $1.17 per km) $81.00 Application filing included in invoice dated 24 June 2025 $500.00 Interest to 23 September 2025$2,452.80 Total award$48,002.89 Less $500 filing fee which has already been added $500.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $47,502.89
Reasons
- The hearing was held on 23 September 2025. Both parties attended in person. Ms MacGregor attended for the Body Corporate along with the Building Manager, Mr Misiloi. Mr and Mrs Ganjia, directors of the respondent company, also attended.
- The applicant, Body Corporate no.351599, has filed a claim against the respondent company, Jay Investments 2015 Limited (the registered owner of units 334 and 222, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland, Auckland 1010) for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
- Mr and Mrs Ganjia for the respondent company dispute liability on several grounds, including serious allegations against the Building Manager involving misconduct, a demand for an unlawful payment (bribe), negligent supervision of a problematic tenant, and racial discrimination. The Tribunal acknowledges the gravity of the respondent’s claims, but reminds the parties that the scope of this hearing is limited to whether the levies and on-charges were properly authorised and calculated, and whether the costs are recoverable under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”).
- The matter was adjourned to allow further clarification of the levy status and allocation of payments in particular regarding the query on Document 11 – the levy due 1 October 2024 for $2,576.50. The Tribunal has reviewed the responses received since and has subsequently issued the decision below.
Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?
- A Unit Owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) UTA.
- The Body Corporate has determined the levies payable and Unit Owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
- The Body Corporate has fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the Unit Owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) UTA. The Body Corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.
- The applicant has produced levy notices, AGM minutes approving the budgets, and the registered unit title plan. The levies were properly struck, and notices issued.
- The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s confirmation that $9,682.89 remains outstanding. Although the Respondent disputes the $249.05 reversal, the Tribunal is not persuaded that this is a valid defence in the present context. There is no evidence of a formal resolution by the Body Corporate to grant a one-off discount. The Tribunal accepts the discount was applied in error and may lawfully be reversed.
- The respondent argues that a prior conversation with a representative from Strata Title, Mr Rudy Teura, resulted in a verbal waiver of the late payment rules and that the discount was consciously and intentionally applied. While the Tribunal accepts that such a conversation may have occurred, there is no documentary evidence that the Body Corporate, through its proper decision-making process, agreed to permanently waive the late payment policy or to apply a discretionary discount outside of the relevant rules.
- The evidence establishes that the payment was made on 10 October 2024— outside the grace period—and the discount was applied due to a system error. There is no evidence that this was ratified by the Body Corporate committee or that the respondent was notified in writing of a waiver. While the respondent’s reliance on the “change of position” doctrine is noted, this Tribunal must apply the statutory framework in the Unit Titles Act, which requires strict adherence to the levy process. The Unit Titles Act does not confer discretion on the Tribunal to override the Body Corporate’s levy determinations where they have been lawfully made.
- The Tribunal therefore finds that the respondent is liable for the full amount of the outstanding levies, including the $249.05 that was incorrectly discounted and has since been reversed. The amount of $9,682.89 is payable by the respondent.
Are the on-charges valid?
- Section 127 UTA allows a Body Corporate to recover costs incurred due to a Unit Owner’s tenant’s actions. The Tribunal is satisfied that the charges relate to deliberate damage or misuse of common property, based on reports and emails submitted contemporaneously.
- The Tribunal accepts that the damage occurred during the Respondent’s tenant’s occupancy. There is no evidence that the Body Corporate or Building Manager acted improperly in attributing these costs. While the Tribunal acknowledges the personal toll and contextual hardship faced by the Respondent, these do not invalidate the cost recovery mechanism under section 127.
Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?
- If a Unit Owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 UTA.
- The Body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.
Is the Unit Owner liable for costs?
- Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover the amount of any unpaid levy, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting levies, as a debt due by the Unit Owner. This includes solicitor/client costs, provided they are objectively reasonable.
- The Courts have repeatedly confirmed that such costs may be recovered in full, including Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185. The Supreme Court held that section 124 is a statutory mechanism that ensures that those who default in paying levies bear the burden of collection costs, rather than those who comply. The Court of Appeal also clarified that the Tribunal must award actual reasonable solicitor/client costs, without exercising discretion to reduce costs merely due to proportionality concerns.
- That position has since been reaffirmed by the District Court in Body Corporate 85928 v Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535, Body Corporate 45131 v 88 Chi Limited [2023] NZDC 9036 and Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645.
- The Tribunal therefore has no discretion to reduce reasonable solicitor/client costs that are genuinely incurred in the course of recovering unpaid levies. The only test is whether the costs are objectively reasonable having regard to: • Whether the work done was reasonably necessary for the recovery process; • Whether the hourly rates charged are within industry norms; • Whether the charges accurately reflect the work performed.
- As the Unit Owner failed to pay the outstanding levies at the time they fell due, the outstanding levies together with interest and collection costs are recoverable as a debt due to the Body Corporate. The Tribunal is satisfied that the collections costs claimed were actually incurred, properly documented and directed at recovering the unpaid levies.
- Following the judgments of the District Court and Court of Appeal set out above, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies be paid by a defaulting Unit Owner.
- It is reasonable to expect full and timely compliance by all Unit Owners on the levies payable when they fall due otherwise a burden is carried disproportionately by those who have paid the levies on time.
- In this case, the respondent considers the amount claimed excessive and unreasonable in all circumstances, but that submission must be rejected.
- In York Trustees Limited v Body Corporate Number 166208 [2017] NZDC 7961 the District Court, dealing with a cross-appeal on costs from the Tenancy Tribunal, quashed the Tribunal decision awarding only a contribution of 60 percent of the total legal costs claimed by the Body Corporate. DCJ Sharp held that the Tribunal misdirected itself as to the legal position in respect of reasonable solicitor/client costs and the Tribunal should have determined that the Body Corporate was entitled to its actual reasonable costs (on a solicitor/client basis) of $32,563.05. Notably at [22], Judge Sharp stressed that the Court of Appeal judgment in Gilbert is binding on the Tribunal (and on the District Court) in that “there is no discretion” available to the Tribunal to award anything less than the full reasonable legal costs charged by the solicitor to its client, the Body Corporate, when it comes to the concept of “reasonable costs incurred in collecting that levy” under section 124 UTA.
- The applicant has supplied itemised invoices, time records, and the relevant Letter of Engagement. The Tribunal accepts that the time expended was necessary given the protracted nature of the dispute, repeated hearing adjournments, and the volume of correspondence.
- The work included issuing formal demands, preparing evidence bundles, liaising with the Body Corporate and Building Manager, managing multiple adjournments and representation. The hourly rates charged and time spent appear consistent with industry norms. Although the total costs are significant, the Tribunal is satisfied that they reflect the complexity, duration and volume of this matter and that the collection and solicitor-client costs ordered above are reasonable. They were incurred in respect of the proceedings; all of the legal costs claimed constituted expenses incurred in pursuing the claim for recovery of unpaid levies under section
- The Tribunal does not have any discretion to waive any of those costs in favour of defaulting Unit Owner no matter how high they appear in relation to the unpaid levies in question or how hard they are struggling or suffering financially.
- It is unfortunate that the costs that followed the non-payment of the levy have greatly inflated the total owed. However, I am unable to accept the respondent’s submissions as the basis not to accede to the Body Corporate’s claim for legal fees. The Tribunal has a duty to follow legal authorities set by the higher courts on an award of solicitor-client costs in favour of the Body Corporate.
- As the Body Corporate has succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Section 176(1) UTA and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Conclusion
- The Tribunal takes seriously the allegations of misconduct, racial discrimination, and corruption raised against the Building Manager. However, this Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to investigate criminal allegations or to make findings on professional misconduct.
- The Tribunal also acknowledges the significant emotional and financial hardship faced by the Respondent and expresses sympathy for the distress caused. However, the statutory regime under the Unit Titles Act does not provide a basis for refusing lawful recovery of levies, on-charges, interest and costs.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0800, s102(4), s124, s124(1), s127, s128, s176(1), s2015, s334, s80(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Property management
- Jay Investments 2015 Limited (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9061784 about?
The tribunal order states: Jay Investments 2015 Limited must pay Body Corporate 351599 $47,502.89
How much money was awarded in case 9061784?
Application Filing Included In Invoi…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Manager’S Debt: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Collection Charges Section 124 Costs…: $34,308.70 awarded to landlord; Hour X 1hr, Plus GST: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Interest: $2,452.80 awarded to landlord; Km: $81.00 awarded to landlord; Overdue Levy: $9,682.89 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 9061784?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9061784?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12692063-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.