What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9068324 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 57013 must pay [The party] $500.00 immediately, being the

How much money was awarded in case 9068324?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9068324?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9068324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12482620-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9068324 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 57013 must pay [The party] $500.00 immediately, being the

How much money was awarded in case 9068324?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9068324?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9068324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12482620-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Rongotai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9068324 — Unit Titles

Order

Body Corporate 57013 must pay [The party] $500.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
Otherwise, there are no further orders made.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Unit Owner, against the Body Corporate. The dispute relates primarily to moving Body Corporate funds without the approval of the Body Corporate. Background
The background is not particularly involved, and can be summarised succinctly as follows:
The premises are commercial premises, in a unit titled development, so fall within the Unit Titles Act 2010.
The bank account for the complex was with Westpac.
I understand that in 2024, the previous body corporate manager resigned suddenly.
A decision was made to move the accounts to a different manager – Oxygen – and the funds were moved accordingly.
On 23 May 2025, Mr Lazarevic filed an application with the Tribunal, relating to concerns over the funds transfer.
On 15 July 2025, and AGM was convened, as I will set out below, at that meeting it was resolved to establish a new bank account for the Body Corporate funds, that would be managed by Oxygen.
A hearing was convened in the Tribunal in Wellington on 30 September 2025. In attendance was Mr Lazarevic, and representing the Body Corporate was Mr Meyer. Unit Owner’s Case
Mr Lazarevic considers that there have been problems at the is body corporate over the years, and he believes that there are problems with the Chair and his operating style.
In recent times, Mr Lazarevic states that he learned that the Body Corporate funds had been moved from the existing bank account at Westpac, to another account at Oxygen, but that was done without the approval of the owners.
The Unit Owner notes that there are no minutes recording what has occurred at meetings over the past year, all that is received is the “odd letter”. Body Corporate’s Case
Mr Meyer advised that an email was sent on 9 October 2024 in which the previous manager resigned, effective immediately, because of conflict with Mr Lazaevic.
Following that, Oxygen was contacted, and provided advice that the Body Corporate funds could be moved to Oxygen, and that the Body Corporate could ratify that later.
Ultimately, Mr Meyer refers to the AGM from 15 July 2025 where it was approved that a new account be established and managed by Oxygen.
I note here that in response, Mr Lazarevic accepts that there may have been a resolution around moving the funds to Oxygen in July 2025, but states that the money was in fact moved months prior, and that should not have occurred.
Mr Meyer agrees that the money was moved prior to the 15 July 2025 AGM, on the basis that Oxygen said they could do that. Analysis
The primary dispute in this case, relates to the moving of the body corporate funds from the original Westpac account to a new account managed by Oxygen.
As I noted at the hearing today, the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) applies. Section 120 relates to a requirement to establish bank accounts, as follows: 120 Separate bank accounts for each fund The body corporate must establish, in accordance with any regulations, either— (a) separate bank accounts for each of the funds; or (b) a single bank account in which the respective funds are kept entirely separate and are able to be identified.
In my assessment, the funds should not have been moved from the original Westpac account without the necessary approval of the Body Corporate via a resolution and vote in the usual way. Section 120 is clear, that the obligation is on the Body Corporate to establish the necessary account, and without the Body Corporate voting on that, then it would have no authority to establish the account in the first place, and it must follow, there would be no account to move the funds into.
It must also be recognised that given this relates to the management of a significant amount of funds, the management of those funds should be scrupulously in line with the requirements in the UTA to ensure those funds are managed safely and securely.
To that extent, I can understand why Mr Lazarevic filed the application with the Tribunal when he did.
However, there was then an AGM on 15 July 2025. The minutes from that have been provided. I see that Mr Lazarevic was in attendance at that meeting.
Those minutes record that motion 29 was passed which related to the “establishment of a new bank account, in the name of the body corporate”, and motion 30 was that Oxygen was approved to manage that account. I see that both resolutions were passed, 11 votes in favour, no votes against, and one abstention. Both motions were solidly confirmed.
In my view, when those resolutions were passed, that then got things back on track. The situation with the accounts then complied with section 120. Because the management of the Body Corporate funds now comply with the UTA, there are no further orders that need to be made in relation to those accounts. Other matters
At the hearing, Mr Lazarevic raised various other matters, such as dissatisfaction over management or governance at the premises. That is not a matter for the Tribunal to consider. If Mr Lazarevic considers that there should be a change of chair or committee, then that needs to be advanced at an AGM or EGM. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with those matters, it must be the Body Corporate that makes those decisions.
In terms of the minutes, I have no reason to believe that Oxygen would not provide minutes moving forward in the usual way. Costs
I find that the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding should be reimbursed to the applicant. Strictly, Mr Lazarevic has been successful in his application. The application was around the location of the Body Corporate funds, and I am satisfied that he acted reasonably in filling the application when he did. It was only on 15 July 2025, that the Body Corporate complied with its obligations around the location of the funds, following the resolution at the AGM to establish the account. To that extent, the application was successful.

Order

Body Corporate 57013 must pay [The party] $500.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
Otherwise, there are no further orders made.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Unit Owner, against the Body Corporate. The dispute relates primarily to moving Body Corporate funds without the approval of the Body Corporate. Background
The background is not particularly involved, and can be summarised succinctly as follows:
The premises are commercial premises, in a unit titled development, so fall within the Unit Titles Act 2010.
The bank account for the complex was with Westpac.
I understand that in 2024, the previous body corporate manager resigned suddenly.
A decision was made to move the accounts to a different manager – Oxygen – and the funds were moved accordingly.
On 23 May 2025, Mr Lazarevic filed an application with the Tribunal, relating to concerns over the funds transfer.
On 15 July 2025, and AGM was convened, as I will set out below, at that meeting it was resolved to establish a new bank account for the Body Corporate funds, that would be managed by Oxygen.
A hearing was convened in the Tribunal in Wellington on 30 September 2025. In attendance was Mr Lazarevic, and representing the Body Corporate was Mr Meyer. Unit Owner’s Case
Mr Lazarevic considers that there have been problems at the is body corporate over the years, and he believes that there are problems with the Chair and his operating style.
In recent times, Mr Lazarevic states that he learned that the Body Corporate funds had been moved from the existing bank account at Westpac, to another account at Oxygen, but that was done without the approval of the owners.
The Unit Owner notes that there are no minutes recording what has occurred at meetings over the past year, all that is received is the “odd letter”. Body Corporate’s Case
Mr Meyer advised that an email was sent on 9 October 2024 in which the previous manager resigned, effective immediately, because of conflict with Mr Lazaevic.
Following that, Oxygen was contacted, and provided advice that the Body Corporate funds could be moved to Oxygen, and that the Body Corporate could ratify that later.
Ultimately, Mr Meyer refers to the AGM from 15 July 2025 where it was approved that a new account be established and managed by Oxygen.
I note here that in response, Mr Lazarevic accepts that there may have been a resolution around moving the funds to Oxygen in July 2025, but states that the money was in fact moved months prior, and that should not have occurred.
Mr Meyer agrees that the money was moved prior to the 15 July 2025 AGM, on the basis that Oxygen said they could do that. Analysis
The primary dispute in this case, relates to the moving of the body corporate funds from the original Westpac account to a new account managed by Oxygen.
As I noted at the hearing today, the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) applies. Section 120 relates to a requirement to establish bank accounts, as follows: 120 Separate bank accounts for each fund The body corporate must establish, in accordance with any regulations, either— (a) separate bank accounts for each of the funds; or (b) a single bank account in which the respective funds are kept entirely separate and are able to be identified.
In my assessment, the funds should not have been moved from the original Westpac account without the necessary approval of the Body Corporate via a resolution and vote in the usual way. Section 120 is clear, that the obligation is on the Body Corporate to establish the necessary account, and without the Body Corporate voting on that, then it would have no authority to establish the account in the first place, and it must follow, there would be no account to move the funds into.
It must also be recognised that given this relates to the management of a significant amount of funds, the management of those funds should be scrupulously in line with the requirements in the UTA to ensure those funds are managed safely and securely.
To that extent, I can understand why Mr Lazarevic filed the application with the Tribunal when he did.
However, there was then an AGM on 15 July 2025. The minutes from that have been provided. I see that Mr Lazarevic was in attendance at that meeting.
Those minutes record that motion 29 was passed which related to the “establishment of a new bank account, in the name of the body corporate”, and motion 30 was that Oxygen was approved to manage that account. I see that both resolutions were passed, 11 votes in favour, no votes against, and one abstention. Both motions were solidly confirmed.
In my view, when those resolutions were passed, that then got things back on track. The situation with the accounts then complied with section 120. Because the management of the Body Corporate funds now comply with the UTA, there are no further orders that need to be made in relation to those accounts. Other matters
At the hearing, Mr Lazarevic raised various other matters, such as dissatisfaction over management or governance at the premises. That is not a matter for the Tribunal to consider. If Mr Lazarevic considers that there should be a change of chair or committee, then that needs to be advanced at an AGM or EGM. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with those matters, it must be the Body Corporate that makes those decisions.
In terms of the minutes, I have no reason to believe that Oxygen would not provide minutes moving forward in the usual way. Costs
I find that the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding should be reimbursed to the applicant. Strictly, Mr Lazarevic has been successful in his application. The application was around the location of the Body Corporate funds, and I am satisfied that he acted reasonably in filling the application when he did. It was only on 15 July 2025, that the Body Corporate complied with its obligations around the location of the funds, following the resolution at the AGM to establish the account. To that extent, the application was successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9068324 — Unit Titles in Rongotai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9068324 — Unit Titles in Rongotai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions