Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064684 — Unit Titles in Browns Bay, Auckland

Decided 10 Jul 2025 · Published 10 Jul 2025 · Application 9064684

Unit Titles

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Kee

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064684 — Unit Titles in Browns Bay, Auckland

Decided 10 Jul 2025 · Published 10 Jul 2025 · Application 9064684

Unit Titles

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Kee

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is withdrawn by leave.

Reasons

Marc Brant of Community Collab Limited attended the hearing for the body corporate.
Mitch Singh of Glaister Keegan Lawyers attended for Barfoot & Thompson.
The body corporate’s application was originally for an order that Barfoot & Thompson (the former body corporate manager), hand over all the body corporate’s documents, information, and a bank account to Community Collab (the current body corporate manager).
Mr Singh submits that Barfoot & Thompson has handed over all the body corporate’s documents and information to the best of its knowledge, but that it cannot hand over the actual bank account itself as the bank’s processed do not permit that.
Mr Brant asked for the matter to be stood down so that he could review Mr Singh’s bundle of documents prepared for the hearing today. When the Tribunal recalled the matter, Mr Brant indicated there were still some outstanding handover issues. However, these issues appear eminently capable of being resolved between the parties without the need for litigation. Mr Singh submitted he was happy to engage with Mr Brant on his concerns.
There being no apparent serious issue to be tried today, the Tribunal grants the body corporate leave to withdraw its claim.
The file is closed.
There is no issue as to costs.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Unit Titles Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s0800

Key findings

Dispute theme: unit titles

Property management

BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9064684 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is withdrawn by leave.

How much money was awarded in case 9064684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064684?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097298-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is withdrawn by leave.

Reasons

Marc Brant of Community Collab Limited attended the hearing for the body corporate.
Mitch Singh of Glaister Keegan Lawyers attended for Barfoot & Thompson.
The body corporate’s application was originally for an order that Barfoot & Thompson (the former body corporate manager), hand over all the body corporate’s documents, information, and a bank account to Community Collab (the current body corporate manager).
Mr Singh submits that Barfoot & Thompson has handed over all the body corporate’s documents and information to the best of its knowledge, but that it cannot hand over the actual bank account itself as the bank’s processed do not permit that.
Mr Brant asked for the matter to be stood down so that he could review Mr Singh’s bundle of documents prepared for the hearing today. When the Tribunal recalled the matter, Mr Brant indicated there were still some outstanding handover issues. However, these issues appear eminently capable of being resolved between the parties without the need for litigation. Mr Singh submitted he was happy to engage with Mr Brant on his concerns.
There being no apparent serious issue to be tried today, the Tribunal grants the body corporate leave to withdraw its claim.
The file is closed.
There is no issue as to costs.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Unit Titles Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s0800

Key findings

Dispute theme: unit titles

Property management

BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9064684 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is withdrawn by leave.

How much money was awarded in case 9064684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064684?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097298-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.