What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9062544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9062544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12378360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9062544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9062544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12378360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Caversham, Dunedin Tenancy Tribunal Case 9062544 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 26 August 2025, the Tribunal ordered that the Body Corporate pay Mr Lester $1,376.24.

Costs of the application were reserved, with a direction that Mr Lester must make any costs application within 5 days.

Mr Lester made an application for costs. The Body Corporate were directed to provide any response by 5pm on 1 September 2025. The Body Corporate made no submissions.

Mr Lester has applied for costs of $690.00 and provided an invoice from his solicitor dated 29 September 2024.

In this context, the Tribunal’s discretion to award costs arises from the Residential Tenancies Act and the principles to be applied are set out in the District Court decision of Body Corporate 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669.

That decision confirmed that the Tribunal may only award costs of the type specified in section 102(3), if one of the criteria in section 102(2) have been met.

It is arguable section 102(2)(c) applies to the current situation being a proceeding which should have settled at mediation.

However, the costs sought are not within the category of costs that the Tribunal can award under s102(3). The Tribunal has discretion to award, to a party, the reasonable costs of that party, in connection with the proceeding.

In the Ikeda decision, the Judge noted: “[5] It is not usual for the Tribunal to award costs. It is however empowered to do so by s 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As relevant that section provides:... ... (3) In any case to which subsection (2) applies, the Tribunal may order a party to pay: ... (b) to another party, the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings. ... [6] The word “proceedings” is not defined in the Act. “Proceedings” is defined in the District Court Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction of the Court other than an interlocutory application. [7] I am of the view therefore that the word “proceedings” in s 102 encompasses the application to the Tribunal, any interlocutory matters that are dealt with by the Tribunal, preparation for the hearing and the actual hearing before the Adjudicator, as being the proceeding that is amenable to a costs order.

The costs claimed by Mr Lester were for advice received in September 2024. The application was made in December 2024. While the advice related to matters raised in this application, it was not a cost incurred in connection with the proceedings, as described by the Judge at para 7 in Ikeda.

The application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

On 26 August 2025, the Tribunal ordered that the Body Corporate pay Mr Lester $1,376.24.

Costs of the application were reserved, with a direction that Mr Lester must make any costs application within 5 days.

Mr Lester made an application for costs. The Body Corporate were directed to provide any response by 5pm on 1 September 2025. The Body Corporate made no submissions.

Mr Lester has applied for costs of $690.00 and provided an invoice from his solicitor dated 29 September 2024.

That decision confirmed that the Tribunal may only award costs of the type specified in section 102(3), if one of the criteria in section 102(2) have been met.

It is arguable section 102(2)(c) applies to the current situation being a proceeding which should have settled at mediation.

The application for costs is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062544 — Unit Titles in Caversham, Dunedin

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062544 — Unit Titles in Caversham, Dunedin

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