How much money was awarded in case 9062264?

Or Their Lawyers With The Contact De…: $5,113.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062264?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148805-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9062264?

Or Their Lawyers With The Contact De…: $5,113.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062264?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148805-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9062264 — Unit Titles

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9062264?

The tribunal order states: Under s 171(3A)(a) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, the respondent must provide the

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062264. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944. 2. Body Corporate 558944 must pa	$5,113.00		or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944. 2. Body Corporate 558944 must pa

The parties were represented by Counsel. The applicants were represented by Mr Baker and Ms Naidoo, and the respondent was represented by Mr Kim.

On 1 May 2025, I made an order that: Under s 171(3A)(a) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, the respondent must provide the applicants or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944.

I gave the parties leave to seek clarification of that order, if required.

The Body Corporate sought clarification of that order as follows: The contact details provided by the respondent must only be accessed by the applicants (or their lawyers) to forward their letter dated 9 December 2024 to the unit owners within Body Corporate 558944.

I set the matter down for a hearing but, given the urgency of the matter, I made an interim order on 11 June 2025 as follows: Under s 171(3A)(a) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, the respondent must provide the applicants or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944 immediately upon this order being made, limiting access for the purpose only of including the circulation of the proposed letter dated 9 December 2024

In the meantime, the respondent applied for costs.

The issues before the Tribunal today were therefore: a. Whether an order should be made restricting the applicant’s access and use of the contact details of the owners within the Body Corporate. b. Whether costs should be ordered against the Body Corporate with respect to this application and, if so, for how much. Background

The applicants are the owners of two apartments at 9 Madeira Lane, Grafton. They were concerned about the imminent development of proposed townhouses at 3 Madeira lane Grafton, located next door. They claim that the rear walls of the proposed townhouses will be built just 30 centimetres from the eastern wall of their apartment building, thereby preventing apartment owners in the Body Corporate from maintaining the cladding on the eastern wall.

The applicants wanted to send a letter to all other owners in the Body Corporate about this issue. They were concerned that something needed to be done about this promptly as the relevant consent for the townhouses has already been issued.

On 9 December 2024, the applicants sent a draft letter dated 9 December 2024 to the Body Corporate and asked for access to the Body Corporate register so that they could obtain contact details of the other owners in the Body Corporate and send the draft letter to them.

The requested a list of all owners and their contact details by 12 December 2024. In the draft letter, they state: Auckland Council has approved the construction of 7 x 3 storey townhouses 300 mm (1 foot) from our Eastern wall. in the event there are issues with the Reynodual cladding on the eastern facing – every owner will face the prospect of having to contribute to the repair of the eastern facing - not just those owners possessing units there. Hence, it is reasonable to expect the Committee, to act in good faith (as per the UTA Code of Conduct), and inform ALL owners of events – and possible consequences of their lack of action. At the recent AGM the Committee had no clue that building consents had already been issued by Council and that the commencement of earthworks was imminent.

At the hearing today, Ms Sleep advised me that she had sent an earlier notification to the Body Corporate on 11 November 2024 about the neighbouring development, asking for access to the contact details of other owners, and had had no reply. She then clarified prior to the conclusion of the hearing that there had only been the one communication, being the 9 December email with the proposed letter.

Ms Sleep got no response to that communication and so instructed her solicitors to file the application before the Tribunal on 18 December 2024.

I note that at the earlier hearing, Mr Kim had initially sought an adjournment on the basis of his only very recent instructions. The appearance by Mr Kim only just prior to the earlier hearing was the first time the applicants had received any response to their request for the contact details of other owners.

I therefore recorded in my earlier decision that: I note that the body corporate has taken no steps to oppose the application, other than appearing today and requesting an adjournment within on 24 hours of the hearing. Mr Kim submits that he has only recently been instructed and needs time to get further instructions. In a memorandum filed with the Tribunal he submitted: ...... a. The Body Corporate’s manager is unavailable to attend the hearing. b. Counsel has only been instructed today and requires additional time to obtain instructions and an opportunity to file a response and evidence on behalf of the Body Corporate.

Separately, a letter addressed to all unit owners of NEO Apartments regarding the neighbouring development at 3 Madeira Lane is expected to be circulated within the next two weeks. This may alleviate the concerns raised in the applicants’ letter dated 9 December 2024 and/or have a bearing on the orders being sought by the applicants.

In declining the request to adjourn I noted further that: “Had the body corporate wished to seek an adjournment it should have done so immediately after the application was filed.” Should an order should be made restricting the applicant’s access and use of the contact details of the owners within the Body Corporate?

Regulation 4 of the Unit Titles Regulation 2011 sets out the purpose for which the body corporate register may be searched.

Regulation 4(3) provides that the chairperson, the body corporate committee, or person approved by the body corporate, or the Committee m a y search the register for certain specific purposes.

The specific purposes are referred to in regulation 4(4)(e), being to forward information or documentation from a unit owner to another unit owner, provided that the information or documentation relates to the management of the unit title development; or relates to the use or enjoyment of the unit title development.

I note that in the Court of Appeal decision in Lihua Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 1 it was stated:

It bears emphasis that the power to deny a unit owner access to the register is a very modest one. The regulation supports accountability of the committee and body corporate by facilitating independent communication among unit owners about the development’s management or use and enjoyment. An applicant may wish to contact fellow owners precisely because it has failed to achieve its objectives via the body corporate’s governance processes or management. It follows that the committee cannot justify denying access merely because it disagrees with the applicant on the merits of any given dispute.

We observe that an applicant might sensibly satisfy the committee of its purpose by providing a copy of the proposed communication, as Woolford J suggested, but that is not a prerequisite. If the committee feels the need to set the record straight it may contact owners itself.

There is therefore no requirement that a draft letter first be approved by a Body Corporate before circulation, although for practical purposes, I envisage that a unit holder would of course provide that to a Body Corporate for review, as indeed the applicants sensibly did here.

I do not consider I have any ability to place any constriction on any proposed future letter the applicants may wish to send, by making the order the respondent wishes me to make, especially given there is not even any current draft communication before me for consideration. The application really relates to a future unknown event. The applicants are well aware of the purposes for which they have been given access to the register, as ordered above. There are remedies available to the Body Corporate if the regulations are not observed in the future and 1 Lihua Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 [2013] NZCA 630, at [29] and [30]. communications are sent or proposed to be sent that fall outside the scope of regulation 4.

I therefore decline the respondent’s application and my original order stands.

For completion purposes I note Mr Baker’s submission that this matter ought have been the subject of an appeal, however I consider Mr Kim has raised the matter in the correct way as I had reserved parties leave to seek clarity on the order and that is what the respondents have done.

Should costs be ordered in favour of the respondents?

The respondents seek costs under s 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Their application has been successful.

The Tribunal has a discretion to award costs where parties instruct Counsel (s 102(2)(b)).

I accept the submission of the respondent that the costs factors and principles set out extensively in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 2 apply to the discretion to award costs under this provision. Costs follow the event and the usual principles therefore apply.

In BC v Ikeda, 3 DCJ Harrison noted that it was clear the Tribunal was bound to fix costs according to legal principle applicable in doing so, and cannot seize upon a figure which appears to the adjudicator to be an appropriate amount.

His Honour referred with approval to the approach in French v Ryan, 4 that in assessing what a reasonable contribution to costs might be it is appropriate to consider the actual costs involved.

I consider it appropriate to award costs in this case. This is not a case where it would be appropriate to order that costs lie where they fall. The applicants sent a proposed letter they wanted to send to the Body Corporate and gave a deadline to reply. The matter was urgent but the Body Corporate did not reply. The applicants filed their application and there was still no response until several months later when Mr Kim was instructed.

Mr Kim referred me to communications sent by the Body Corporate as evidence that it was progressing the matter, however those communications were not sent until May and June of this year.

The applicants sought 80% of their actual costs. The actual costs were $11,726.13. Three invoices were provided, the first being dated 20 December 2024, for $2,276.00. 2 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 3 [2020] NZDC 3669 4 HM Taumaunu DCJ, 29 November 2012, CIV-2012-004-000711.

I agree with Mr Kim there needs to be deduction from that starting point because the first invoice appears to relate in part at least to attendances prior to the application being filed. That said I assume at least some of the invoice relates to the cost of filing the application because it immediately post-dates the filing of the application. Deducting say $1500 for pre-litigation attendances, the starting point is therefore $10,226.13.

The Body Corporate should have replied to the initial email the applicants sent. After the application was filed, it should have communicated with the applicants and, had it done so, the need for ongoing legal attendances and the two hearings could have been avoided.

I consider its conduct in failing to respond until the last minute, and only then, to respond by seeking an adjournment have contributed to the costs involved in this matter.

I consider this an appropriate case to award 50% of actual costs (less the above deduction), being $5113. This is within the range of 40% to 70% endorsed in Holden v Architectural Finishes, and reflects the factors referred to in that decision (and summarised conveniently in Constable v Cooper & Co.) 5

The Body Corporate must therefore pay this sum to the applicants. 3

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062264. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944. 2. Body Corporate 558944 must pa	$5,113.00		or their lawyers with the contact details for unit owners within Body Corporate 558944. 2. Body Corporate 558944 must pa

The parties were represented by Counsel. The applicants were represented by Mr Baker and Ms Naidoo, and the respondent was represented by Mr Kim.

I gave the parties leave to seek clarification of that order, if required.

In the meantime, the respondent applied for costs.

Ms Sleep got no response to that communication and so instructed her solicitors to file the application before the Tribunal on 18 December 2024.

Regulation 4 of the Unit Titles Regulation 2011 sets out the purpose for which the body corporate register may be searched.

Regulation 4(3) provides that the chairperson, the body corporate committee, or person approved by the body corporate, or the Committee m a y search the register for certain specific purposes.

I note that in the Court of Appeal decision in Lihua Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 1 it was stated:

I therefore decline the respondent’s application and my original order stands.

Should costs be ordered in favour of the respondents?

The respondents seek costs under s 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Their application has been successful.

The Tribunal has a discretion to award costs where parties instruct Counsel (s 102(2)(b)).

His Honour referred with approval to the approach in French v Ryan, 4 that in assessing what a reasonable contribution to costs might be it is appropriate to consider the actual costs involved.

Mr Kim referred me to communications sent by the Body Corporate as evidence that it was progressing the matter, however those communications were not sent until May and June of this year.

I consider its conduct in failing to respond until the last minute, and only then, to respond by seeking an adjournment have contributed to the costs involved in this matter.

The Body Corporate must therefore pay this sum to the applicants. 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062264 — Unit Titles in Grafton, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062264 — Unit Titles in Grafton, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should costs be ordered in favour of the respondents?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should costs be ordered in favour of the respondents?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions