What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9063004?

The tribunal order states: DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

How much money was awarded in case 9063004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9063004?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9063004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12218827-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9063004?

The tribunal order states: DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

How much money was awarded in case 9063004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9063004?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9063004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12218827-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9063004 — Unit Titles

Order

DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

The claim is dismissed for duplication.

Reasons

This is an application by the body corporate to dismiss Mr Black’s claim for want of jurisdiction and abuse due to duplication.
Mr Black originally brought this claim as a cross-claim to the body corporate’s straightforward levies claim. I decided the levies claim separately to Mr Black’s claim because the claims did not appear to be sufficiently connected and for clarity. 1
This decision is made on the papers by consent of the parties. Both parties have filed submissions.
The want of jurisdiction argument need not be considered. The body corporate’s argument was based on Mr Black’s claim arguably exceeding the Tribunal’s monetary limits. However, after the body corporate filed its submissions, Mr Black amended his claim so as to negate the body corporate’s jurisdiction argument.
After Mr Black filed his submissions in response, the body corporate replied, submitting the Tribunal was functus officio because Mr Black’s claim was reduced to being a claim for set-off that could not be separated from the levies claim. However, my intent in separating the claims was to preserve all of Mr Black’s claims, however they were expressed. That approach is consistent with the Tribunal’s procedures. 1 Body Corporate 125491 v Michal Carson Black [2025] NZTT 9056084.
After the original applicant makes a claim, any claims by the other party must be brought by a separate application by them. The Tribunal deals with the other party’s claims at the same time as the initial claim preferably, or separately, if that advances the interests of justice and the optimal use of the Tribunal’s publicly-funded resources.
The only live issue remaining is whether Mr Black’s proceedings should be dismissed because as the body corporate summarise it, “Mr Black is already pursuing a claim including this same expenditure in the correct jurisdiction and pursuing this claim here is an abuse of process.” 2 Background
The unit is located in Waterloo Quadrant, not far from the Auckland High Court.
Regrettably, the building has suffered from serious structural problems, which need repairing. The cost of the repair is massive. The body corporate and the unit owners have fallen into dispute and litigation. An administrator has had to be appointed.
Mr Black has concurrent judicial review/equity proceedings in the High Court against the body corporate, the intituling of which describes the proceeding as being: IN THE MATTER Of decisions made by a Body Corporate in the misuse, mismanagement and spending of special levies in breach of the Unit Titles Act 2010, special resolutions and in equity
Mr Black’s Second Amended Statement of Claim in the High Court proceedings says, inter alia:
In breach of ss 77, 78 the March Special Resolutions and as specified hereafter, the respondent made decisions to incur obligations, intermingle and transfer operational funds, and spend levies in excess of its duties and powers. This included those expressly restricted and limited by the March Special Resolutions. These decisions were not in accordance with the law, invalid, unfair, unreasonable and breached the UTA and regulations, further particulars of which follow.
The respondent exceeded its authority, the duties and specific powers delegated by the March Special Resolutions. It entered into obligations over the nature and scope of the proposed works for common and private betterments. In continuing to do so, it wrongfully incurred expenditure by mismanaging levies paid for other purposes, which were not authorised by the March Special Resolutions or otherwise. (a)From March 2021 there were significant delays and changes in the work program, scope and costs, which were materially different from those prescribed and restricted by the March Special Resolutions. (b)From about mid 2021 to 2023 the body corporate nevertheless... (c)Without obtaining any resolutions, this included transferring substantial monies from operational levies to pay for those obligations and expenditure.
Mr Black’s Statement of Cross Claim in the Tribunal says, inter alia: 2 Submissions for the Applicant/Cross-respondent dated 13 May 2025 at para 17(b).
On 11 March 2021 special resolutions were passed at a BC special general meeting to (among other things) fix proposed remedial costs and expenditure. The BC's levy claim (and Unit 1's cross claim) involves these resolutions, and the BC's conduct and mismanagement of levies paid.
The BC's levy claim (inter alia) fails to properly address the special resolutions passed on 11 March 2021. The resolutions were not complied with and were exceeded by the BC. Without proper authority and in breach of Unit Title processes, significant expenditure was unlawfully, wrongfully and invalidly paid by the BC from special levies on remedial 'services'... ...
Further, the levies struck and paid by the respondent for a specific purpose, cannot be used and 'spent' by the body corporate (or applied) for any other purposes. If the purpose for paying the levies did not eventuate, or proves impossible or unnecessary, then the money must be returned. Special levies cannot be used and spent by the BC for any collateral or other purposes. The parties’ submissions
Mr Wood for the body corporate submits: 3
The cross-application is disingenuous and is an abuse of process as he is already making a claim that involves that expenditure in the High Court (detailed below with a couple of qualifications due to an uncertainty in the evidence). ...
The body corporate should not be vexed twice by the same matter in different jurisdictions at the same time.
In response, Mr Black amended his claim to negate the jurisdictional challenge based on the Tribunal’s monetary limits but maintains a claim totalling $9,526.19, which is the amount the Tribunal ordered Mr Black to pay for unpaid levies.4
Mr Black maintains among other things, “this amount was ‘levied’ (and paid under protest) by the respondent to the operational account well before the May 25 Tribunal hearing. It results from the payment being transferred by the Body Corporate to the ‘remedial report’ which led to this levy dispute”. Discussion
At root, Mr Black’s claim in the High Court is that the body corporate utterly mismanaged the development. In the Tribunal, he is focussing on one element of that mismanagement.
Mr Black’s claim in the Tribunal involves the allegation that the body corporate improperly transferred his levies to the ‘remedial report’. That is a specific instance of the general allegation he is pursuing in the High Court, namely, “transferring substantial monies from operational levies to pay for those obligations and expenditure”. 3 In reliance on Dunstan v Auckland High Court [2023] NZSC 3. 4 Body Corporate 125491 v Michael Carson Black [2025] NZTT 9056084 (23 May 2025).
The body corporate set out its argument for duplication clearly in its written submissions. Mr Black’s submissions responded only obliquely to the body corporate’s argument. If Mr Black did have a claim in the Tribunal that was distinct from his High Court claim he - as highly experienced and competent counsel - could and would have articulated that. He has not done so. That is because the claims are not distinct.
Mr Black’s cross-claim is a subset of his High Court claim dressed up as a claim for set- off against subsequent recent properly raised levies.
I agree with Mr Wood’s submission that Mr Black’s attempts to separate out this particular part of his comprehensive assault upon the body corporate’s management in the High Court would offend the rule in Henderson v Henderson against splitting claims or bringing claims by instalment. 5 Conclusion
Mr Black’s claim is dismissed for duplication.
Mr Wood made pithy submissions on costs. 6 The body corporate seeks $1,910.00 costs by analogy to the District Court scale.
The parties may seek a costs order from the Tribunal if required.

Order

DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

The claim is dismissed for duplication.

Reasons

This is an application by the body corporate to dismiss Mr Black’s claim for want of jurisdiction and abuse due to duplication.
Mr Black originally brought this claim as a cross-claim to the body corporate’s straightforward levies claim. I decided the levies claim separately to Mr Black’s claim because the claims did not appear to be sufficiently connected and for clarity. 1
This decision is made on the papers by consent of the parties. Both parties have filed submissions.
The want of jurisdiction argument need not be considered. The body corporate’s argument was based on Mr Black’s claim arguably exceeding the Tribunal’s monetary limits. However, after the body corporate filed its submissions, Mr Black amended his claim so as to negate the body corporate’s jurisdiction argument.
After Mr Black filed his submissions in response, the body corporate replied, submitting the Tribunal was functus officio because Mr Black’s claim was reduced to being a claim for set-off that could not be separated from the levies claim. However, my intent in separating the claims was to preserve all of Mr Black’s claims, however they were expressed. That approach is consistent with the Tribunal’s procedures. 1 Body Corporate 125491 v Michal Carson Black [2025] NZTT 9056084.
After the original applicant makes a claim, any claims by the other party must be brought by a separate application by them. The Tribunal deals with the other party’s claims at the same time as the initial claim preferably, or separately, if that advances the interests of justice and the optimal use of the Tribunal’s publicly-funded resources.
The only live issue remaining is whether Mr Black’s proceedings should be dismissed because as the body corporate summarise it, “Mr Black is already pursuing a claim including this same expenditure in the correct jurisdiction and pursuing this claim here is an abuse of process.” 2 Background
The unit is located in Waterloo Quadrant, not far from the Auckland High Court.
Regrettably, the building has suffered from serious structural problems, which need repairing. The cost of the repair is massive. The body corporate and the unit owners have fallen into dispute and litigation. An administrator has had to be appointed.
Mr Black has concurrent judicial review/equity proceedings in the High Court against the body corporate, the intituling of which describes the proceeding as being: IN THE MATTER Of decisions made by a Body Corporate in the misuse, mismanagement and spending of special levies in breach of the Unit Titles Act 2010, special resolutions and in equity
Mr Black’s Second Amended Statement of Claim in the High Court proceedings says, inter alia:
In breach of ss 77, 78 the March Special Resolutions and as specified hereafter, the respondent made decisions to incur obligations, intermingle and transfer operational funds, and spend levies in excess of its duties and powers. This included those expressly restricted and limited by the March Special Resolutions. These decisions were not in accordance with the law, invalid, unfair, unreasonable and breached the UTA and regulations, further particulars of which follow.
The respondent exceeded its authority, the duties and specific powers delegated by the March Special Resolutions. It entered into obligations over the nature and scope of the proposed works for common and private betterments. In continuing to do so, it wrongfully incurred expenditure by mismanaging levies paid for other purposes, which were not authorised by the March Special Resolutions or otherwise. (a)From March 2021 there were significant delays and changes in the work program, scope and costs, which were materially different from those prescribed and restricted by the March Special Resolutions. (b)From about mid 2021 to 2023 the body corporate nevertheless... (c)Without obtaining any resolutions, this included transferring substantial monies from operational levies to pay for those obligations and expenditure.
Mr Black’s Statement of Cross Claim in the Tribunal says, inter alia: 2 Submissions for the Applicant/Cross-respondent dated 13 May 2025 at para 17(b).
On 11 March 2021 special resolutions were passed at a BC special general meeting to (among other things) fix proposed remedial costs and expenditure. The BC's levy claim (and Unit 1's cross claim) involves these resolutions, and the BC's conduct and mismanagement of levies paid.
The BC's levy claim (inter alia) fails to properly address the special resolutions passed on 11 March 2021. The resolutions were not complied with and were exceeded by the BC. Without proper authority and in breach of Unit Title processes, significant expenditure was unlawfully, wrongfully and invalidly paid by the BC from special levies on remedial 'services'... ...
Further, the levies struck and paid by the respondent for a specific purpose, cannot be used and 'spent' by the body corporate (or applied) for any other purposes. If the purpose for paying the levies did not eventuate, or proves impossible or unnecessary, then the money must be returned. Special levies cannot be used and spent by the BC for any collateral or other purposes. The parties’ submissions
Mr Wood for the body corporate submits: 3
The cross-application is disingenuous and is an abuse of process as he is already making a claim that involves that expenditure in the High Court (detailed below with a couple of qualifications due to an uncertainty in the evidence). ...
The body corporate should not be vexed twice by the same matter in different jurisdictions at the same time.
In response, Mr Black amended his claim to negate the jurisdictional challenge based on the Tribunal’s monetary limits but maintains a claim totalling $9,526.19, which is the amount the Tribunal ordered Mr Black to pay for unpaid levies.4
Mr Black maintains among other things, “this amount was ‘levied’ (and paid under protest) by the respondent to the operational account well before the May 25 Tribunal hearing. It results from the payment being transferred by the Body Corporate to the ‘remedial report’ which led to this levy dispute”. Discussion
At root, Mr Black’s claim in the High Court is that the body corporate utterly mismanaged the development. In the Tribunal, he is focussing on one element of that mismanagement.
Mr Black’s claim in the Tribunal involves the allegation that the body corporate improperly transferred his levies to the ‘remedial report’. That is a specific instance of the general allegation he is pursuing in the High Court, namely, “transferring substantial monies from operational levies to pay for those obligations and expenditure”. 3 In reliance on Dunstan v Auckland High Court [2023] NZSC 3. 4 Body Corporate 125491 v Michael Carson Black [2025] NZTT 9056084 (23 May 2025).
The body corporate set out its argument for duplication clearly in its written submissions. Mr Black’s submissions responded only obliquely to the body corporate’s argument. If Mr Black did have a claim in the Tribunal that was distinct from his High Court claim he - as highly experienced and competent counsel - could and would have articulated that. He has not done so. That is because the claims are not distinct.
Mr Black’s cross-claim is a subset of his High Court claim dressed up as a claim for set- off against subsequent recent properly raised levies.
I agree with Mr Wood’s submission that Mr Black’s attempts to separate out this particular part of his comprehensive assault upon the body corporate’s management in the High Court would offend the rule in Henderson v Henderson against splitting claims or bringing claims by instalment. 5 Conclusion
Mr Black’s claim is dismissed for duplication.
Mr Wood made pithy submissions on costs. 6 The body corporate seeks $1,910.00 costs by analogy to the District Court scale.
The parties may seek a costs order from the Tribunal if required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9063004 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9063004 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

DISMISSING CLAIM FOR DUPLICATION

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions