What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065724 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9065724?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065724?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065724?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151122-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065724 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9065724?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065724?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065724?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151122-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

North Dunedin, Dunedin Tenancy Tribunal Case 9065724 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Ms Goldsmith in person and her mother by phone. Ms Atkin and Ms Augustino attended by phone for the respondent Crockers Body Corporate Management Limited (Crockers).
The hearing was first scheduled as a video hearing on 9 May 2025. I abandoned that hearing and held a directions conference instead so that Ms Goldsmith could attend a hearing in person. Background
Ms Goldsmith owns Unit 4 and has a part-ownership share of Unit 3 with her mother of the unit title development at 84 Warrender Street Dunedin. The development comprises 10 units.
This application relates to Unit 3 but is broader in the sense that it alleges mismanagement by the body corporate manager of the whole development.
Mrs Goldsmith has owned her unit since about 1978. Ms Goldsmith bought a 10% share in her mother’s unit relatively recently so that she could have a say in setting agenda items for body corporate meetings.
The body corporate used to be self-managing but apparently there were issues with compliance with the requirements on the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). The body corporate resolved to appoint Crockers as manager for the body corporate.
Ms Goldsmith (and her mother) have been unhappy with aspects of Crockers’ management of the body corporate. Her many complaints have resulted in Crockers deciding to relinquish its management contract. Another body corporate management company (one that Ms Goldsmith approves of) is in the process of taking over.
Ms Goldsmith has applied to the Tribunal ‘to step in and stop our body corporate management Crockers from constantly bullying us as unit owners’. She sets out examples she states establish her claims of bullying behaviour.
Separately, Ms Goldsmith seeks compensation for what she alleges are defamatory comments made about her by Crockers, and for her emotional stress, harm, and trauma dealing with Crockers.
Both she and Crockers’ representative have provided written submissions with documentary evidence in support. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Case law
It is established law that a body corporate manager owes no duty of care to individual unit owners, only to the body corporate – see Singh v Boutique Body Corporates Limited 1 .
It is also established law that the threshold for establishing inequitability or unfairness is a very high one – see Tremont Holdings Limited v Body Corporate 401803 2 . 1 [2019] NZHC 1707 2 [2015] NZCA 314
Even if this were an application for minority relief (which it is not) the grounds for applying for minority relief must relate to all the minority, not just the applicant – see 201 Limited v Body Corporate 329331 3 . Discussion
This application is misconceived. There are several reasons why.
First, the application to have the Tribunal interfere with, or even cancel, the appointment of Crockers as the body corporate manager (though now moot since Crockers have relinquished management) would not succeed.
The appointment of a body corporate manager is a matter solely for the body corporate through the democratic voting process. For the Tribunal to interfere with that process would require proof by more than one disaffected unit owner of some fundamental error of process, such as an ultra vires decision.
Second, one unhappy owner (even taking account of the joint ownership by Ms Goldsmith and her mother of Unit 3) does not constitute a minority to comprise an application for minority relief. The Tribunal has no evidence before it of any broader dissatisfaction. Indeed, Ms Goldsmith pointed out more than once that she in now ‘the black sheep’ among unit owners having made the application. As she put it ‘no-one wants anything to do with me now’.
Third, the Tribunal is not a forum of general complaint. It can only make orders that have a statutory basis; it does not have any statutory basis to assuage hurt feeling or allegations of bullying or Ms Goldsmith’s feeling of exclusion and of being demeaned.
Fourth, Ms Atkin’s reply submissions are correct. Crockers had a responsibility to apply the provisions of the UTA. It properly advised Ms Goldsmith that she had no right to provide agenda items because she was not an owner of Unit 3 (nor apparently of Unit 4 at that time). It is puzzling that she found it necessary at some cost to become a part owner of Unit 3 so she could provide agenda items. Her mother always had the right to provide agenda items; surely that was sufficient.
Also correct, is Ms Atkin’s submission that Crockers could only act on instructions given by the committee with majority approval. Ms Goldsmith complained about the amount set aside to fund a gardener. Ms Atkin submitted with proof that the budget was approved at the AGM held on 21 November 2024. It included the budget for gardening. Nine out of ten units were represented including Ms Goldsmith and the budget vote was unanimously carried. That Ms Goldsmith feels 3 [2018] NZHC 1933 the agenda was too big and the items were pushed through is not something the Tribunal can remedy.
Fifth, her criticism of the former chair because he lived remotely is odd. Mrs Goldsmith also lives remotely. That a unit owner does not live in the unit is irrelevant. Ms Atkin (again correctly) advised of a unit owner’s right to appoint a proxy for voting purposes.
Sixth, Ms Goldsmith considers that Crockers defamed her when advising the unit owners that it could no longer continue as manager due to the actions of one unit owner, namely her.
Even if defamatory (which would seem unlikely given the communication read out by Ms Atkin) the Tribunal is not a Court of general civil jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for defamation.
Seventh, Crockers owed no duty of care to Ms Goldsmith or her mother as unit owners. Its duty of care was owed solely to the body corporate. There is no application by the body corporate before the Tribunal for any alleged failures by Crockers or UTA breaches or code of conduct failures. Without an application by the body corporate, the Tribunal cannot make the orders sought by Ms Goldsmith/her mother as an individual unit owner. It seemed clear from Ms Goldsmith’s evidence that she does not have the support of the body corporate (the sum of the unit owners). Result
For the reasons given the application is dismissed. Ms Goldsmith must bear the cost of filing the application.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Ms Goldsmith in person and her mother by phone. Ms Atkin and Ms Augustino attended by phone for the respondent Crockers Body Corporate Management Limited (Crockers).
The hearing was first scheduled as a video hearing on 9 May 2025. I abandoned that hearing and held a directions conference instead so that Ms Goldsmith could attend a hearing in person. Background
Ms Goldsmith owns Unit 4 and has a part-ownership share of Unit 3 with her mother of the unit title development at 84 Warrender Street Dunedin. The development comprises 10 units.
This application relates to Unit 3 but is broader in the sense that it alleges mismanagement by the body corporate manager of the whole development.
Mrs Goldsmith has owned her unit since about 1978. Ms Goldsmith bought a 10% share in her mother’s unit relatively recently so that she could have a say in setting agenda items for body corporate meetings.
The body corporate used to be self-managing but apparently there were issues with compliance with the requirements on the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). The body corporate resolved to appoint Crockers as manager for the body corporate.
Ms Goldsmith (and her mother) have been unhappy with aspects of Crockers’ management of the body corporate. Her many complaints have resulted in Crockers deciding to relinquish its management contract. Another body corporate management company (one that Ms Goldsmith approves of) is in the process of taking over.
Ms Goldsmith has applied to the Tribunal ‘to step in and stop our body corporate management Crockers from constantly bullying us as unit owners’. She sets out examples she states establish her claims of bullying behaviour.
Separately, Ms Goldsmith seeks compensation for what she alleges are defamatory comments made about her by Crockers, and for her emotional stress, harm, and trauma dealing with Crockers.
Both she and Crockers’ representative have provided written submissions with documentary evidence in support. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Case law
It is established law that a body corporate manager owes no duty of care to individual unit owners, only to the body corporate – see Singh v Boutique Body Corporates Limited 1 .
It is also established law that the threshold for establishing inequitability or unfairness is a very high one – see Tremont Holdings Limited v Body Corporate 401803 2 . 1 [2019] NZHC 1707 2 [2015] NZCA 314
Even if this were an application for minority relief (which it is not) the grounds for applying for minority relief must relate to all the minority, not just the applicant – see 201 Limited v Body Corporate 329331 3 . Discussion
This application is misconceived. There are several reasons why.
First, the application to have the Tribunal interfere with, or even cancel, the appointment of Crockers as the body corporate manager (though now moot since Crockers have relinquished management) would not succeed.
The appointment of a body corporate manager is a matter solely for the body corporate through the democratic voting process. For the Tribunal to interfere with that process would require proof by more than one disaffected unit owner of some fundamental error of process, such as an ultra vires decision.
Second, one unhappy owner (even taking account of the joint ownership by Ms Goldsmith and her mother of Unit 3) does not constitute a minority to comprise an application for minority relief. The Tribunal has no evidence before it of any broader dissatisfaction. Indeed, Ms Goldsmith pointed out more than once that she in now ‘the black sheep’ among unit owners having made the application. As she put it ‘no-one wants anything to do with me now’.
Third, the Tribunal is not a forum of general complaint. It can only make orders that have a statutory basis; it does not have any statutory basis to assuage hurt feeling or allegations of bullying or Ms Goldsmith’s feeling of exclusion and of being demeaned.
Fourth, Ms Atkin’s reply submissions are correct. Crockers had a responsibility to apply the provisions of the UTA. It properly advised Ms Goldsmith that she had no right to provide agenda items because she was not an owner of Unit 3 (nor apparently of Unit 4 at that time). It is puzzling that she found it necessary at some cost to become a part owner of Unit 3 so she could provide agenda items. Her mother always had the right to provide agenda items; surely that was sufficient.
Also correct, is Ms Atkin’s submission that Crockers could only act on instructions given by the committee with majority approval. Ms Goldsmith complained about the amount set aside to fund a gardener. Ms Atkin submitted with proof that the budget was approved at the AGM held on 21 November 2024. It included the budget for gardening. Nine out of ten units were represented including Ms Goldsmith and the budget vote was unanimously carried. That Ms Goldsmith feels 3 [2018] NZHC 1933 the agenda was too big and the items were pushed through is not something the Tribunal can remedy.
Fifth, her criticism of the former chair because he lived remotely is odd. Mrs Goldsmith also lives remotely. That a unit owner does not live in the unit is irrelevant. Ms Atkin (again correctly) advised of a unit owner’s right to appoint a proxy for voting purposes.
Sixth, Ms Goldsmith considers that Crockers defamed her when advising the unit owners that it could no longer continue as manager due to the actions of one unit owner, namely her.
Even if defamatory (which would seem unlikely given the communication read out by Ms Atkin) the Tribunal is not a Court of general civil jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for defamation.
Seventh, Crockers owed no duty of care to Ms Goldsmith or her mother as unit owners. Its duty of care was owed solely to the body corporate. There is no application by the body corporate before the Tribunal for any alleged failures by Crockers or UTA breaches or code of conduct failures. Without an application by the body corporate, the Tribunal cannot make the orders sought by Ms Goldsmith/her mother as an individual unit owner. It seemed clear from Ms Goldsmith’s evidence that she does not have the support of the body corporate (the sum of the unit owners). Result
For the reasons given the application is dismissed. Ms Goldsmith must bear the cost of filing the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065724 — Unit Titles in North Dunedin, Dunedin

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065724 — Unit Titles in North Dunedin, Dunedin

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