What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073504 about?

The tribunal order states: Ms Holdaway’s application for recall of a costs Order dated 14 July 2026 is

How much money was awarded in case 9073504?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073504?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13919707-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073504 about?

The tribunal order states: Ms Holdaway’s application for recall of a costs Order dated 14 July 2026 is

How much money was awarded in case 9073504?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073504?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13919707-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Waimauku, Waimauku Tenancy Tribunal Case 9073504 — Unit Titles

Order

Ms Holdaway’s application for recall of a costs Order dated 14 July 2026 is dismissed.

Reasons

On 14 July 2026 the Tribunal issued an order in favour of the Body Corporate, in respect of costs. Ms Holdaway has applied for recall of that order.
Ms Holdaway claims that the Tribunal has acted in error by issuing the costs award. She says that she did make submissions in respect of costs and that the Tribunal failed to take those submissions into account.
This proceeding has a lengthy history.
On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal made orders that the owners pay outstanding levies and associated interest and costs.
On 16 February 2026, Ms Holdaway applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had or may have occurred. On 17 February 2026, I directed that Ms Holdaway’s application for rehearing be set down for hearing. That order included a direction that the parties were to send any evidence and submissions to the Tribunal by email to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz.
The procedural background is set out in an Order of the Tribunal dated 16 June 2026. Ms Holdaway’s application for rehearing was dismissed and the parties were directed to make submissions in relation to costs. The Body Corporate made submissions as directed. Ms Holdaway was directed to make any submissions in reply by 5pm on Friday 3 July 2026.
In the 14 July order, I noted that Ms Holdaway did not make submissions in relation to costs. Instead, she made a further application for rehearing. That application was struck out by Order of the Tribunal dated 24 June 2026.
Before making the costs order, Registry confirmed to me that the Tribunal had not received any submissions from Ms Holdaway in respect of costs.
On 15 July, Ms Holdaway sent a memorandum to the Tribunal seeking recall of the costs order. She claimed to have made submissions in respect of costs. She provided evidence that she sent an email (purporting to attach submissions) to no-reply-utadispute@tenancy.govt.nz at 4:55pm on Friday 3 July 2026.
Ms Holdaway claims the submissions were sent to “the same email address from which all Tribunal correspondence, the costs order and the Tribunal's email reminder were generated. It was successfully transmitted, and no delivery failure notification was received.”
Ms Holdaway’s submission ignores that the emails sent from no-reply- utadispute@tenancy.govt.nz: a. State “This is an unmonitored email address. Please do not reply.” And b. Provide a hyperlink for the correct email address to use for replies – uta@justice.govt.nz.
It is also relevant that Ms Holdaway’s previous communications to the Tribunal had been sent to correct email addresses; both the uta@justice.govt.nz address referred to in the automated emails and the remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz address the parties were directed to use in the 17 February 2026 directions order.
In her email to the “no reply” address on 3 July 2026, Ms Holdaway states “kindly acknowledge receipt”. Her memorandum of 15 July states that she did not receive a delivery failure notification. Nor did she received the acknowledgement of receipt that she had requested and did nothing to follow up until the costs order was issued.
In short, the Tribunal did not receive Ms Holdaway’s submissions on costs because of her failure to use a correct email address. Ms Holdaway was aware of the correct addresses to use and had previously used those addresses. She attempted to send costs submissions by replying to an email that clearly states, “this is an unmonitored address. Do not reply” and which also provided a hyperlink to an address she could have used (and had previously used). There has been no error by the Tribunal. Ms Holdaway has not established any basis for recall of the costs order. Her request is declined.
For completeness, I have read her submissions on costs and remain of the view that the costs award is appropriate. The principles for awarding indemnity costs in relation to levy recovery proceedings are well established. The Body Corporate has satisfied the Tribunal that it was entitled to indemnity costs and that the costs sought were reasonable.

Order

Ms Holdaway’s application for recall of a costs Order dated 14 July 2026 is dismissed.

Reasons

On 14 July 2026 the Tribunal issued an order in favour of the Body Corporate, in respect of costs. Ms Holdaway has applied for recall of that order.
Ms Holdaway claims that the Tribunal has acted in error by issuing the costs award. She says that she did make submissions in respect of costs and that the Tribunal failed to take those submissions into account.
This proceeding has a lengthy history.
On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal made orders that the owners pay outstanding levies and associated interest and costs.
On 16 February 2026, Ms Holdaway applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had or may have occurred. On 17 February 2026, I directed that Ms Holdaway’s application for rehearing be set down for hearing. That order included a direction that the parties were to send any evidence and submissions to the Tribunal by email to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz.
The procedural background is set out in an Order of the Tribunal dated 16 June 2026. Ms Holdaway’s application for rehearing was dismissed and the parties were directed to make submissions in relation to costs. The Body Corporate made submissions as directed. Ms Holdaway was directed to make any submissions in reply by 5pm on Friday 3 July 2026.
In the 14 July order, I noted that Ms Holdaway did not make submissions in relation to costs. Instead, she made a further application for rehearing. That application was struck out by Order of the Tribunal dated 24 June 2026.
Before making the costs order, Registry confirmed to me that the Tribunal had not received any submissions from Ms Holdaway in respect of costs.
On 15 July, Ms Holdaway sent a memorandum to the Tribunal seeking recall of the costs order. She claimed to have made submissions in respect of costs. She provided evidence that she sent an email (purporting to attach submissions) to no-reply-utadispute@tenancy.govt.nz at 4:55pm on Friday 3 July 2026.
Ms Holdaway claims the submissions were sent to “the same email address from which all Tribunal correspondence, the costs order and the Tribunal's email reminder were generated. It was successfully transmitted, and no delivery failure notification was received.”
Ms Holdaway’s submission ignores that the emails sent from no-reply- utadispute@tenancy.govt.nz: a. State “This is an unmonitored email address. Please do not reply.” And b. Provide a hyperlink for the correct email address to use for replies – uta@justice.govt.nz.
It is also relevant that Ms Holdaway’s previous communications to the Tribunal had been sent to correct email addresses; both the uta@justice.govt.nz address referred to in the automated emails and the remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz address the parties were directed to use in the 17 February 2026 directions order.
In her email to the “no reply” address on 3 July 2026, Ms Holdaway states “kindly acknowledge receipt”. Her memorandum of 15 July states that she did not receive a delivery failure notification. Nor did she received the acknowledgement of receipt that she had requested and did nothing to follow up until the costs order was issued.
In short, the Tribunal did not receive Ms Holdaway’s submissions on costs because of her failure to use a correct email address. Ms Holdaway was aware of the correct addresses to use and had previously used those addresses. She attempted to send costs submissions by replying to an email that clearly states, “this is an unmonitored address. Do not reply” and which also provided a hyperlink to an address she could have used (and had previously used). There has been no error by the Tribunal. Ms Holdaway has not established any basis for recall of the costs order. Her request is declined.
For completeness, I have read her submissions on costs and remain of the view that the costs award is appropriate. The principles for awarding indemnity costs in relation to levy recovery proceedings are well established. The Body Corporate has satisfied the Tribunal that it was entitled to indemnity costs and that the costs sought were reasonable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073504 — Unit Titles in Waimauku, Waimauku

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073504 — Unit Titles in Waimauku, Waimauku

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