What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9071124 about?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9071124?

White: $7,764.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9071124?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9071124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14187201-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9071124 about?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9071124?

White: $7,764.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9071124?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9071124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14187201-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9071124 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9071124. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
White	$7,764.75		White

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 March 2026 upon which I reserved my decision.

On 21 May 2026, I ordered the body corporate to pay the applicants Annette Louise Frances Sleep and Stanley White $3,000.00 immediately, being the insurance excess of $2,500.00 charged by the Body Corporate and $500.00 Tribunal filing fee.

I reserved the issue of costs to be determined on the papers, following filing of memorandum by the parties, if counsel cannot agree on costs between themselves.

Parties could not agree on costs and counsel for both parties have filed their memoranda accordingly. Both parties had sought costs.

I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers, as follows.

I acknowledge counsel for the body corporate’s submission that costs claimed by the applicants for their limited success should be refused entirely and for the applicants to pay costs to the body corporate in the sum of $3,399.

However, the general principle is costs follow the event.

The applicants have been successful in their claims, despite not entirely on all the pleaded causes of action.

The applicants were successful in the claim for the return of the insurance excess of $2,500 paid to the body corporate. The applicants were also successful in having the filing fee reimbursed by the body corporate.

The applicants were unsuccessful in the claim for return of the plumbing expenses of $906.81 (plus admin charges of $57.50) of $964.31 paid to the body corporate.

In Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330, Justice Williams noted that “success on more limited terms is still success”. His Honour confirmed that costs should follow the event and while limited success or unreasonable conduct may justify a reduction in costs (even to nil), it does not justify awarding costs to the unsuccessful party. For this reason alone, the body corporate is not entitled to costs.

I also reject the body corporate’s submission that the applicants ought to have accepted the body corporate’s settlement offer made close to the eve of the hearing. The body corporate’s offer of 13 March 2026 was only for payment of $2,500 which is $500.00 short of the $3,000.00 ultimately ordered by me for the return of insurance excess of $2,500.00 charged by the Body Corporate and $500.00 Tribunal filing fee. Had the body corporate offered $3,000, plus costs, then arguably a Calberbank offer might have been in effect.

There is also no principle that disallows an award of costs to the successful party after they have engaged solicitors to pursue “an exceptionally low value claim” which costs exceeded the substantive claims by themselves.

In Middeldorp v Avondale Jockey Club Inc [2021] NZSC 117, the Supreme Court held that “predictability and certainty in relation to costs awards is important and that the costs discretion must be exercised in a principled way, reflecting the provisions of Part 14 of the High Court Rules 2016. Their Honours also noted that success is “determined by reference to the factual assessment as to who the successful party was on an overall basis”.

I accept counsel for the applicants’ submission that in substance, the applicants achieved substantial success in which the principal issue in dispute was liability for the insurance excess of $2,500 on which the applicants wholly succeeded.

Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel.

The issue is what are ‘reasonable costs’ in the circumstances.

In the Tenancy Tribunal, there is no schedule as to costs and so the Tribunal traditionally relies on common law case authorities that outline the principles as to awards of costs.

Prior to the introduction of schedules the District Court and High Court the courts awarded a reasonable contribution to costs based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties – see Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149.

In Holden the court stated “...a court [or Tribunal] should not forget the ultimate question or overlook the principles which underlie. There is wood as well as the trees. The ultimate question always remains: What is a reasonable contribution in these particular circumstances?”

The leading text by Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para

3.5 states: The Tribunal may also order a party to pay the reasonable costs of any other party to the proceedings ... The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal referring to the factors set out in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 148 – 149. What is considered “reasonable contribution” to a successful party’s costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 percent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40-70 per cent of actual costs (Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd at 149-150).

Section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can only order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the successful party on matters in connection with the proceedings.

In Body Corporate 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669, Judge Harrison held at [19]: “...I accept that the relevant invoices refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before the commencement of the claim cannot be recovered, neither can post-hearing attendances, by which time the Tribunal will be functus officio, having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make a costs order.”

However, the relevant rules in the High Court and District Court on scale costs clearly allow for time spent before proceedings are filed, such as preparing a statement of claim (or filing of proceedings at the Tribunal) which included “receiving instructions, researching facts and law, and filing and serving that document”. Those are costs which are in connection to and related to the proceedings.

Judge Harrison had earlier at [18] referred to counsel having “accepted $11,307.76 as being incurred in relation to the proceedings out of total legal costs of $25,957.03”. Accordingly, the context of the words “attendances before the commencement of the claim cannot be recovered” at [19] of Ikeda must be directed towards costs/invoices which were not incurred in relation to the proceedings before the commencement of the claim.

It cannot be correct to surmise from Ikeda that Judge Harrison had intended to hold that the Tenancy Tribunal’s outlook on costs is a complete departure from the District Court and High Court positions on scale costs that costs incurred in receiving instructions, researching facts and law, in anticipation of litigation that can be claimed.

Specifically, I accept the applicants’ counsel’s first invoice number 028543 dated 28 August 2025 was for matters in connection to the Tribunal proceedings as they are akin to District Court scale costs items of “receiving instructions, researching facts and law, and filing and serving that (statement of claim) document.”

In that context, preparing and completing a Tribunal application form is akin to a statement of claim filed at the Courts.

Filing of claims and issuance of proceedings do not appear out of the blue. It is reasonable to expect counsel and lawyers to incur getting-up costs in receiving instructions, and researching facts and law, before filing them at a court or tribunal. Those costs in connection to the proceedings are therefore claimable/taxable for the purposes of an award of costs.

I consider these invoices incurred by the applicants totalling $12,941.25 to be in connection with the proceedings before me, which may be claimed by the applicants pursuant to Judge Harrison’s principles in Ikeda: a. INV-028543 for $4,874.00 b. INV-029573 for $3,772.00 c. INV-029594 for $4,295.25

Invoice 030298 dated 19 June 2026 was entirely for attendances post the 19 March 2026 hearing before me.

Following Ikeda, at [19], post-hearing attendances are not claimable/taxable. I subsequently became functus officio, having completed the hearing on 19 March 2026 and later released my decision on 21 May 2026, save for my residual power to make a costs order.

Following Ikeda, at [29], as a general rule, costs are not awarded on a costs determination, and as a consequence, costs incurred post-hearing should lie where they fall.

Following Holden, I consider an award of costs of $7,764.75 (being 60% of $12,941.25) appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

I therefore make an order for the body corporate to pay costs of $7,764.75 to the applicants.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9071124. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
White	$7,764.75		White