What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9067084 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate

How much money was awarded in case 9067084?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9067084?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Remedial Levy, Ordinary Levy, Costs, Interest.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9067084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273395-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9067084 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate

How much money was awarded in case 9067084?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9067084?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Remedial Levy, Ordinary Levy, Costs, Interest.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9067084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273395-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9067084 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9067084 — Unit Titles | TenantCheck

Order

[The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate 171476 $42,203.35 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Remedial Levy: Special Levy – Balance of Main Projectas per 2024 AGM due on 20/9/2024 and Special Remedial – West Side Works due on 20/02/2025 and 01/06/2025 $33,380.09 Ordinary Levy: deficit on previous payment towards operational levies $20.32 Costs: body corporate collection costs$402.50 Costs: legal collection costs$5,709.63 Interest: from 20 September 2024 to 15 August 2025 $1,874.56 Filing Fee$500.00 Costs$316.25 Total award$42,203.35

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
The body corporate has fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies.
The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable. The costs include body corporate counsel’s attendance at the remote hearing of one hour.

Is the Unit owner entitled to a stay of proceedings and stay of this order?

The unit owner did not offer any challenge or question to the amounts quantified in this application. The unit owner however seek a stay of proceedings and of the order.
The unit owner says that there are extant and related proceedings in the District Court as well as at the Tribunal which have yet to be heard and determined.
Mr Malarao submits that Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd v Body Corporate 171476 (CIV 2025-004-1170) is relevant in that the plaintiff in that proceeding were the ones who developed his apartment and who he bought the apartment from. They retain apartments on level 10 and are challenging the levies. Mr Malarao supports their case, and says the outcome of that case will determine once and for all whether the levies the body co-operate is seeking from him are payable or not. Mr Malarao says it is in the interests of justice that one judicial officer makes a decision on the legality of otherwise of the levies and associated issues.
In the event that the Tribunal is not persuaded to grant a stay, Mr Malarao requests that the present case be adjourned and joined up with his own Tribunal application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476 in which he sought an order that “the current and future levy invoices raised to fund Levels 5 to 15 passive fire upgrade works be cancelled as costs as I have already paid more than offset these amounts.”
However, I consider that the purpose of section 124 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 is to ensure levy recovery on a “pay now and argue later” basis, recognising that bodies corporate rely on levies in order to fund collective interests and remedial costs and other owners must subsidise short-paid levies. See the judgment of Associate Judge Bell in Singh v Body Corporate 207650 [2018] NZHC 1932 involving a levy summary judgment on appeal from the District Court which endorsed the position of District Court Judge Harrison at [22] and [43].
In this case, the levies in the body corporate’s levy claim comprise a substantial amount of over $30,000, which must be met by others for as long as the respondent does not pay.
I do not consider Mr Malarao’s application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476 to be a proper defence to the body corporate’s levy claims. The unit owner’s counterclaim, which has yet to be scheduled for hearing, is not a defence to the body corporate’s levy claim based on a statutory debt under section 124 UTA.
Accordingly, the allegations in the counterclaim are not interdependent, on fact or law, with the levy claim, and it is not necessary for both to be heard together.
An alleged set-off by way of counterclaim cannot negate a right to bring a claim for a statutory debt due. See NZME v Grant [1988] NZCA 135 pages 9 -10.
I also do not consider this levy claim to be interdependent or sufficiently connected the District Court proceedings in Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd v Body Corporate 171476 (CIV 2025-004-1170).
The proceedings in the District Court against the body corporate involves allegations of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. These matters are unrelated and independent of the respondents’ statutory obligations to pay their levies to the body corporate.
I accept counsel for the body corporate’s submission that those District Court proceedings are a separate argument to be heard in a different jurisdiction, which in any event involves a different party ie., Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd, rather than Mr Malarao per se.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For completeness, I am also without jurisdiction to stay my own order on the unit owner’s liability to pay the statutory debt (including interests and costs) under section 124 UTA pending hearing of Mr Malarao application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476.

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
The body corporate has fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies.
The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable. The costs include body corporate counsel’s attendance at the remote hearing of one hour.

Is the Unit owner entitled to a stay of proceedings and stay of this order?

The unit owner did not offer any challenge or question to the amounts quantified in this application. The unit owner however seek a stay of proceedings and of the order.
The unit owner says that there are extant and related proceedings in the District Court as well as at the Tribunal which have yet to be heard and determined.
Mr Malarao submits that Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd v Body Corporate 171476 (CIV 2025-004-1170) is relevant in that the plaintiff in that proceeding were the ones who developed his apartment and who he bought the apartment from. They retain apartments on level 10 and are challenging the levies. Mr Malarao supports their case, and says the outcome of that case will determine once and for all whether the levies the body co-operate is seeking from him are payable or not. Mr Malarao says it is in the interests of justice that one judicial officer makes a decision on the legality of otherwise of the levies and associated issues.
In the event that the Tribunal is not persuaded to grant a stay, Mr Malarao requests that the present case be adjourned and joined up with his own Tribunal application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476 in which he sought an order that “the current and future levy invoices raised to fund Levels 5 to 15 passive fire upgrade works be cancelled as costs as I have already paid more than offset these amounts.”
However, I consider that the purpose of section 124 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 is to ensure levy recovery on a “pay now and argue later” basis, recognising that bodies corporate rely on levies in order to fund collective interests and remedial costs and other owners must subsidise short-paid levies. See the judgment of Associate Judge Bell in Singh v Body Corporate 207650 [2018] NZHC 1932 involving a levy summary judgment on appeal from the District Court which endorsed the position of District Court Judge Harrison at [22] and [43].
In this case, the levies in the body corporate’s levy claim comprise a substantial amount of over $30,000, which must be met by others for as long as the respondent does not pay.
I do not consider Mr Malarao’s application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476 to be a proper defence to the body corporate’s levy claims. The unit owner’s counterclaim, which has yet to be scheduled for hearing, is not a defence to the body corporate’s levy claim based on a statutory debt under section 124 UTA.
Accordingly, the allegations in the counterclaim are not interdependent, on fact or law, with the levy claim, and it is not necessary for both to be heard together.
An alleged set-off by way of counterclaim cannot negate a right to bring a claim for a statutory debt due. See NZME v Grant [1988] NZCA 135 pages 9 -10.
I also do not consider this levy claim to be interdependent or sufficiently connected the District Court proceedings in Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd v Body Corporate 171476 (CIV 2025-004-1170).
The proceedings in the District Court against the body corporate involves allegations of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. These matters are unrelated and independent of the respondents’ statutory obligations to pay their levies to the body corporate.
I accept counsel for the body corporate’s submission that those District Court proceedings are a separate argument to be heard in a different jurisdiction, which in any event involves a different party ie., Tamaki Investment Services 2024 Ltd, rather than Mr Malarao per se.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For completeness, I am also without jurisdiction to stay my own order on the unit owner’s liability to pay the statutory debt (including interests and costs) under section 124 UTA pending hearing of Mr Malarao application number 9058486 against Body Corporate 171476.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9067084 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9067084 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Is the Unit owner entitled to a stay of proceedings and stay of this order?

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Is the Unit owner entitled to a stay of proceedings and stay of this order?