Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 9067425 — Tenancy dispute in Parnell, Auckland

Decided 20 Aug 2026 · Published 20 Aug 2026 · Application 9067425

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

D Watson

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $32,576.44
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $32,576.44

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9067425 — net $32,576.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Legal costs	$2,328.01	Legal costs
Legal costs – appearance today	$115.00	Legal costs – appearance today
Levies (ground rent	$29,633.43	Levies (ground rent
Filing fee	$500.00	Filing fee

Order

[The party] and Jung Jin must pay Body Corporate 201036 $32,576.44 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionApplicant Levies (ground rent) $29,633.43 Legal costs Legal costs – appearance today $2328.01 $115.00 Filing fee$500.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $32,576.44

Reasons

Mr Wood appeared for the Body Corporate. There was no appearance for the respondents.
The Body Corporate applies for: a. Ground rent levies of $29,633.43 b. Legal costs of $2328.01 plus unbilled work in progress of $724.50 c. The filing fee of $500.

Do the Unit Owners 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 for the ground rent and the respondent’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 respondents have not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010. The Body Corporate has provided records to prove the amounts claimed and ordered above for levies.
After hearing from Mr Wood, I am satisfied that the ground rent levy was properly raised because it was approved as a budgeted item at the relevant AGM’s.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, 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 judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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.
The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context, of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4
The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the key elements of the relevant legal framework as follows: 5 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185. 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.
Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.
At para [8], the District Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way.
The reference to Rule 9 above is a reference to rule 9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. This sets out the “reasonable fee factors”, which are listed as follows: 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted.
1 The factors to be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of a fee in respect of any service provided by a lawyer to a client include the following: (a) the time and labour expended: (b) the skill, specialised knowledge, and responsibility required to perform the services properly: (c) the importance of the matter to the client and the results achieved: (d) the urgency and circumstances in which the matter is undertaken and any time limitations imposed, including those imposed by the client: (e) the degree of risk assumed by the lawyer in undertaking the services, including the amount or value of any property involved: (f) the complexity of the matter and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved: (g) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer: (h) the possibility that the acceptance of the particular retainer will preclude engagement of the lawyer by other clients: (i) whether the fee is fixed or conditional (whether in litigation or otherwise): (j) any quote or estimate of fees given by the lawyer: (k) any fee agreement (including a conditional fee agreement) entered into between the lawyer and client: (l) the reasonable costs of running a practice: (m) the fee customarily charged in the market and locality for similar legal services. Analysis and application of the law
Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the available records associated with the costs that are claimed.
The actual time records have not been supplied, only a narration of the time spent. Usually, the Tribunal is provided with detailed time records for such applications.
There have been a number of legal attendances in this matter. The application is relatively formulaic, but I generally accept that time still needs to be spent completing the application and checking all the details.
In relation to the work in progress that was claimed, no invoice was provided in respect of that amount.
I am required to take a “standing back assessment”. Taking a “standing back assessment”, I take into account the sparsity of the time records but also the lack of any invoice for the work in progress. I am prepared to allow $100 plus GST for the appearance at the hearing (reduced because there were four other matters dealt with at the same time), but I do not allow any additional time.
I also take into account the matter was adjourned from the second hearing due to there being inadequate information about the ground rent levies, a cost which should not be visited on the respondents.
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.

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, s102(4), s124, s124(1), s124(2), s176(1), s2008, s80(1)

Key findings

Dispute theme: unit titles

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9067425 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and Jung Jin must pay Body Corporate 201036 $32,576.44

How much money was awarded in case 9067425?

Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $2,328.01 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Levies (Ground Rent: $29,633.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9067425?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9067425?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14086730-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9067425 — net $32,576.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Legal costs

$2,328.01

Legal costs

Legal costs – appearance today

$115.00

Legal costs – appearance today

Levies (ground rent

$29,633.43

Levies (ground rent

Filing fee

$500.00

Filing fee

Reasons

Mr Wood appeared for the Body Corporate. There was no appearance for the respondents.

The Body Corporate applies for: a. Ground rent levies of $29,633.43 b. Legal costs of $2328.01 plus unbilled work in progress of $724.50 c. The filing fee of $500.

Do the Unit Owners 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 for the ground rent and the respondent’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 respondents have not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010. The Body Corporate has provided records to prove the amounts claimed and ordered above for levies.

After hearing from Mr Wood, I am satisfied that the ground rent levy was properly raised because it was approved as a budgeted item at the relevant AGM’s.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, 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 judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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.

The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context, of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4

The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the key elements of the relevant legal framework as follows: 5 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185. 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.

Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.

At para [8], the District Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way.

The reference to Rule 9 above is a reference to rule 9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. This sets out the “reasonable fee factors”, which are listed as follows: 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted.

1 The factors to be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of a fee in respect of any service provided by a lawyer to a client include the following: (a) the time and labour expended: (b) the skill, specialised knowledge, and responsibility required to perform the services properly: (c) the importance of the matter to the client and the results achieved: (d) the urgency and circumstances in which the matter is undertaken and any time limitations imposed, including those imposed by the client: (e) the degree of risk assumed by the lawyer in undertaking the services, including the amount or value of any property involved: (f) the complexity of the matter and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved: (g) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer: (h) the possibility that the acceptance of the particular retainer will preclude engagement of the lawyer by other clients: (i) whether the fee is fixed or conditional (whether in litigation or otherwise): (j) any quote or estimate of fees given by the lawyer: (k) any fee agreement (including a conditional fee agreement) entered into between the lawyer and client: (l) the reasonable costs of running a practice: (m) the fee customarily charged in the market and locality for similar legal services. Analysis and application of the law

Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the available records associated with the costs that are claimed.

The actual time records have not been supplied, only a narration of the time spent. Usually, the Tribunal is provided with detailed time records for such applications.

There have been a number of legal attendances in this matter. The application is relatively formulaic, but I generally accept that time still needs to be spent completing the application and checking all the details.

In relation to the work in progress that was claimed, no invoice was provided in respect of that amount.

I am required to take a “standing back assessment”. Taking a “standing back assessment”, I take into account the sparsity of the time records but also the lack of any invoice for the work in progress. I am prepared to allow $100 plus GST for the appearance at the hearing (reduced because there were four other matters dealt with at the same time), but I do not allow any additional time.

I also take into account the matter was adjourned from the second hearing due to there being inadequate information about the ground rent levies, a cost which should not be visited on the respondents.

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.