What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065544 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9065544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13918552-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065544 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9065544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13918552-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 9065544 — Unit Titles

Order

The respondents’ application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal issued its decision on this application on 6 May 2026.
The application was made by the body corporate comprising all the unit owners of the development at 173 Chester Street East, central Christchurch against Mr [The party] and the 2 named respondent companies.
The Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to hear claims against Mr Brown and Boutique Living Limited.
The Tribunal confirmed that it had jurisdiction to hear claims against TBR Blocks Limited, but noted:
Counsel accepted that TBR as a previous owner fell within the kind of persons listed in section 171(2) UTA. But again, given the issues raised against that party the Tribunal cannot make at least some of the orders sought (eg, breaches of the Fair Trading Act). Other issues relating to contracts are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction since section 78 RTA applies. But as Mr Kortekaas and Mr Synnott observed TBR has no assets, so no effective remedies might be available.
It would be artificial for the Tribunal to make limited orders against one named respondent only. And what orders it could make are not immediately clear since the body corporate’s submissions have addressed the respondent parties’ alleged breaches collectively. Probably, any alleged breaches against TBR are distinct both in time and in scope.
While the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to hear a claim against TBR, it is still restricted in what it can hear in terms of breaches of the UTA. Ideally, the case against all named respondents needs to be heard together before the correct forum.
The Tribunal adjourned the application against TBR Blocks Limited with directions.
The body corporate (the unit owners) then advised the Tribunal that it did not wish to pursue claims against TBR Blocks Limited; it withdrew the application and said that the unit owners would further pursue their respective claims against the named respondents in the Disputes Tribunal (if granted a rehearing) or in the District Court.
The Tribunal reserved the issue of costs. The application for costs
Counsel for the named respondents emailed the registry on 22 May 2026 and confirmed that the respondent sought costs, noting: ...Costs are sought as we have raised our defence from the outset and at no time did the Applicant establish any breaches of the Act. This has resulted in significant costs for the respondent which are sought.
Counsel filed submissions addressing costs. Costs of $26,750.00 plus GST are sought together with disbursements of $1,150.00.
Counsel has submitted that costs generally follow the event, and that the respondent was completely successful in its defence of the applicant’s claims within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Counsel has noted that the proceedings were lengthy with over 6,500 pages received from the applicant’s lawyers. Investigation and preparation involved over 59 hours of counsel’s time. The applicant’s response
Mr Kortekaas for the body corporate has submitted that the Tribunal only resolved a jurisdictional/forum issue; that it did not determine the substantive issues in the respondent’s favour; and the body corporate proceeded in the Tenancy Tribunal because of the Disputes Tribunal’s decision to decline jurisdiction a position the respondent supported. Discussion
Counsel for the respondents is correct: costs usually follow the event.
However, this is not a case where the respondents have successfully defended the substantive issues. While the Tribunal canvassed the issues broadly, it did not analyse them or more importantly decide them.
Both the Disputes Tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal are lay tribunals. The difference is that in the Disputes Tribunal lawyers are excluded whereas in the Tenancy Tribunal legal representation is permitted once a monetary threshold is reached, and in other limited circumstances 1 .
In this case the respondents chose to be legally represented. The outcome would have been the same regardless because it was the Tribunal’s own analysis of the applicant’s claims that resulted in its decision to (mostly) decline jurisdiction.
Mr Kortekaas has stated the applicant’s position on costs as follows:
The individual owners originally filed claims in the Disputes Tribunal. Those claims were individual purchaser claims based on sale and purchase agreements, alleged contractual obligations, Building Act warranties, alleged misrepresentation, Fair Trading Act issues, and disclosure issues. The individual owners had hearings scheduled in that forum.
Shortly before those scheduled Disputes Tribunal hearings, the Respondents raised jurisdictional concerns regarding common property and shared building elements. That led the Disputes Tribunal to question whether individual unit owners could pursue claims for costs borne by them in relation to remediating those elements.
The owners then followed the pathway that appeared to be required. The Body Corporate proceeded in the Tenancy Tribunal because the defects and remediation costs involved common property and shared building elements. That was consistent with s 138(1) of the Unit Titles Act, which requires a body corporate to repair and maintain common property and building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than one unit.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, the Respondents again raised jurisdiction, but from the opposite direction. Having earlier objected in the Disputes Tribunal because the claims involved common property and shared building elements, the Respondents then argued in the Tenancy Tribunal that the Body Corporate could not pursue the same underlying losses against Mr Brown and Boutique Living Limited because those parties did not fall within the relevant respondent categories under s 171(2) of the Unit Titles Act. 1 See section 93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986
That sequence matters. The Respondents’ first jurisdictional objection pushed the owners away from the Disputes Tribunal. The Respondents’ second jurisdictional objection then challenged the Tenancy Tribunal pathway. The final order has now clarified that the individual claims should return to the Disputes Tribunal pathway.
This is not a case where the Respondents defeated an unmeritorious claim. It is a case where the parties were taken through a jurisdictional detour, substantially arising from the Respondents’ own objections, before being returned to the forum in which the owners originally filed.
The Applicant does not criticise the Respondents for raising jurisdiction. The point is that the resulting Tenancy Tribunal pathway was not caused by unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.
Had the Respondents not raised the original jurisdictional objection in the Disputes Tribunal, the individual owners’ claims could have proceeded in that forum. In that forum, legal representation would not have been part of the ordinary process.
The Respondents’ costs application therefore asks the Tribunal to make the owners pay for a procedural route that arose from the Respondents’ own objection. That would be unjust.
I agree with that reasoning. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of both Tribunals, which, if accepted, would lock out the applicants from pursuing valid claims, or force them to the District Court with its greater complexity which in turn impacts on costs. They elected to file the proceedings in lay tribunals specifically to avoid costs.
So, while costs usually follow the event, they do not always follow the event. In my decision dated 6 May 2026, I referred to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
While that section could not be employed to assist the applicant with the substantive issues, it can comfortably be employed to address the application for costs.
The substantive merits and justice lean the Tribunal towards a decision dismissing the application for costs in this case. The substantive application is yet to be heard either in the Disputes Tribunal or in the District Court.
The respondent incurred costs in preparation for the first Disputes Tribunal case knowing they would not be able to make an application for costs there. It would be unjust for this Tribunal to award costs now when all that was determined was jurisdiction, opposed in both forums by the respondents.
The legal work done for the respondents addresses the substantive issues yet to be heard. It would be unjust for the respondents to be awarded costs for the same preparation in this Tribunal for the issues that will be heard in the Disputes Tribunal (if the case proceeds there) when the same costs cannot be claimed in that Tribunal. Result
The application for costs is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065544 — Unit Titles in Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065544 — Unit Titles in Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions