What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073545 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate 401596

How much money was awarded in case 9073545?

Costs: Attendance @ Hearing, 1 Hour: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest:: $103.98 awarded to landlord; ORDER DescriptionsApplicantResponden…: $7,085.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073545?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13189477-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073545 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate 401596

How much money was awarded in case 9073545?

Costs: Attendance @ Hearing, 1 Hour: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest:: $103.98 awarded to landlord; ORDER DescriptionsApplicantResponden…: $7,085.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073545?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13189477-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9073545 — Unit Titles

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9073545. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ORDER DescriptionsApplicantRespondent	$7,085.60	ORDER DescriptionsApplicantRespondent
Costs: attendance @ hearing, 1 hour	$322.00	Costs: attendance @ hearing, 1 hour
Interest: to 4 September 2025	$103.98	Interest: to 4 September 2025
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee

Order

[The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate 401596 $8,011.58 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Costs: legal collection costs incurred pursuant to s124 UTA and s127 UTA $7,085.60 Costs: attendance @ hearing, 1 hour$322.00 Interest: to 4 September 2025$103.98 Filing Fee$500.00 Total award$8,011.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 February 2026.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of collection costs on overdue levies, interest on overdue levies, further costs incurred in the proceedings and the Tribunal filing fee from the unit owner.

Has the Unit Owner paid the levies on time?

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 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 levies to be paid on 16 June 2025, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The unit owner accept that they have not paid the 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 levies for $4,685.71 by the due date on 16 June 2025.
The overdue levies were only paid on 4 September 2025 after the body corporate has instructed their managers and solicitors to collect the unpaid levies.

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 date the levies were paid on 4 September 2025.
The unit owner have not paid the interest due of $103.98.

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.
More recently, the District Court in Body Corporate 85928 v Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535, Body Corporate 45131 v 88 Chi Limited [2023] NZDC 9036 and Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645 endorsed the body corporate’s recovery of full solicitor/client costs under section 124 UTA.
The body corporate seeks full solicitor/client costs under section 124 UTA of $7,085.60.
The unit owner disputes the reasonableness of the legal and collection costs.
Along with the outstanding levies of the outstanding levies totalling $4,685.71, the unit owner was also requested to pay the debt collection charges of the Body Corporate’s manager, Strata Title Administration Limited, of $920.00 and solicitors’ fees of $986.00 (including GST and office expenses) through the letter dated 3 September 2025 by Price Baker Berridge solicitors.
On 4 September 2025 the unit owner advised the body corporate solicitors that the levies have been paid, on the same day. The unit owner emailed: “The body corp fees have been paid - however I am disputing the excessive additional charges as I do not believe they are justified.”
The legal executive of Price Baker Berridge responded: “You have advised that you wish to dispute the further charges. Therefore, we will file a Tenancy Tribunal claim against you immediately and further charges will be incurred”.
The unit owner replied: “While I’m happy to attend the disputes tribunal hearing I would prefer a negotiated settlement. Is this something you would entertain?”
Price Baker Berridge responded: “Unfortunately, we cannot provide any discounts or write offs of the additional charges.”
The unit owner replied: “Your unwillingness to negotiate or justify the charges is noted - I will take it up with the disputes tribunal in due course.”
All of the above email communication took place on 4 September, the day that the unit owner paid the outstanding levies.
Further legal fees have since been incurred by the body corporate solicitors in filing these legal proceedings leading up to the hearing before me on 26 February 2026.
The total legal and collection fees now claimed are $7,085.60, up from $1,906.00 claimed on 4 September 2025. The unit owner disputes the collection charges as disproportionate to the outstanding levies initially sought, which has since been paid on 4 September 2025.
I consider the $1,906.00 claimed by Price Baker Berridge on 4 September 2025 to be payable to the body corporate pursuant to section 124 UTA.
Following the line of authorities set out at [13] and [14] above, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover the $1,906.00 as reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a statutory debt due by the owner.
The reasonableness of the legal and collection costs is viewed on a solicitor-client basis. Consequently, there the solicitor has reasonably charged their client (the body corporate) those costs for collecting the overdue levies, those very charges are also due and payable by the unit owner pursuant to section 124 UTA.
It was therefore in order for Price Baker Berridge to insists on payment of the full $1,906.00 as claimed by the solicitors on 4 September 2025 because they were reasonably and actually incurred on a solicitor-client basis.
As for the costs incurred after 4 September 2025, they were incurred in filing these proceedings to collect the legal fees of $1,906.00 and interest on the outstanding levies as set out at [10] and [11] above.
The legal costs incurred in in filing these proceedings to collect the legal fees of and interest are also payable by the unit owner, under section 127 UTA.
Section 127 Unit Titles Act 2010 provides as follows: Recovery of money expended where person at fault (1) This section applies if the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee. (2) Any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the expense, is recoverable as a debt due to the body corporate (less any amount already paid) by the person who was the unit owner at the time the expense became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.
Following BC 170989 v Anquila Holdings Ltd [2020] NZHC 758 at [75]), the elements needed for s 127 costs to be recoverable are when: (a) There is an act by the Body Corporate; (b) The Body Corporate must be required or authorised to do the act under the UTA or some other Act; (c) The act must be rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission by specified persons; (d) Those persons must be a unit owner, or his or her or its tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee
Applying section 127 Unit Titles Act 2020, I am satisfied that the Body Corporate is entitled to recover from the unit owner legal costs incurred in filing and prosecuting these proceedings to recover the initial $1,906.00 and interests of $103.98 as an “expense” incurred by the body corporate in doing an “act” that was rendered necessary by reason of “wilful or negligent act or omission” on the part of the unit owner in refusing and failing to pay the aforesaid collection costs and interest.
I am satisfied from the timesheets appended by the solicitors that the collection costs ordered in the table above including for the legal executive’s attendance at the hearing, and solicitor/client costs in filing and prosecuting these proceedings are reasonable.
Having been satisfied that the total costs charged by counsel for the body corporate and the body corporate secretary are reasonable on a solicitor-client basis, I do not have any discretion to waive any of those costs in favour of the defaulting unit owner.
In the upshot, sections 124 and 127 UTA prescribe a statutory debt in favour of the body corporate once levies are properly raised and payable; equally, legal and collection costs and interest become a statutory debt which accords no discretion on the Tribunal to waive or discount, despite the Tribunal exercising a substantial merits and justice jurisdiction pursuant to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
On the contrary, under section 85 RTA, the Tribunal is mandated to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter, including those principles of law set out above.
The Supreme Court n Gilbert v Body Corporate 162791 [2016] NZSC 61 [BC42] at paragraph [78] held that the UTA costs recovery provisions (including s 127) provided for reasonable solicitor/client costs to be recovered. In this regard, section 127 of the UTA does not differentiate between costs of legal representation or other expenses incurred by a body corporate such as the costs of a professional manager doing work above and beyond that manager’s standard management fee, due solely to the at-fault-party’s actions.
I therefore award the body corporate $8,011.58 which includes legal costs, hearing attendance, debt collection charges, interest and the Tribunal filing fee, as set out in the table above.
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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9073545. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ORDER DescriptionsApplicantRespondent	$7,085.60	ORDER DescriptionsApplicantRespondent
Costs: attendance @ hearing, 1 hour	$322.00	Costs: attendance @ hearing, 1 hour
Interest: to 4 September 2025	$103.98	Interest: to 4 September 2025
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 February 2026.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of collection costs on overdue levies, interest on overdue levies, further costs incurred in the proceedings and the Tribunal filing fee from the unit owner.

Has the Unit Owner paid the levies on time?

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 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 levies to be paid on 16 June 2025, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The unit owner accept that they have not paid the 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 levies for $4,685.71 by the due date on 16 June 2025.
The overdue levies were only paid on 4 September 2025 after the body corporate has instructed their managers and solicitors to collect the unpaid levies.

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 date the levies were paid on 4 September 2025.
The unit owner have not paid the interest due of $103.98.

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.
More recently, the District Court in Body Corporate 85928 v Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535, Body Corporate 45131 v 88 Chi Limited [2023] NZDC 9036 and Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645 endorsed the body corporate’s recovery of full solicitor/client costs under section 124 UTA.
The body corporate seeks full solicitor/client costs under section 124 UTA of $7,085.60.
The unit owner disputes the reasonableness of the legal and collection costs.
Along with the outstanding levies of the outstanding levies totalling $4,685.71, the unit owner was also requested to pay the debt collection charges of the Body Corporate’s manager, Strata Title Administration Limited, of $920.00 and solicitors’ fees of $986.00 (including GST and office expenses) through the letter dated 3 September 2025 by Price Baker Berridge solicitors.
On 4 September 2025 the unit owner advised the body corporate solicitors that the levies have been paid, on the same day. The unit owner emailed: “The body corp fees have been paid - however I am disputing the excessive additional charges as I do not believe they are justified.”
The legal executive of Price Baker Berridge responded: “You have advised that you wish to dispute the further charges. Therefore, we will file a Tenancy Tribunal claim against you immediately and further charges will be incurred”.
The unit owner replied: “While I’m happy to attend the disputes tribunal hearing I would prefer a negotiated settlement. Is this something you would entertain?”
Price Baker Berridge responded: “Unfortunately, we cannot provide any discounts or write offs of the additional charges.”
The unit owner replied: “Your unwillingness to negotiate or justify the charges is noted - I will take it up with the disputes tribunal in due course.”
All of the above email communication took place on 4 September, the day that the unit owner paid the outstanding levies.
Further legal fees have since been incurred by the body corporate solicitors in filing these legal proceedings leading up to the hearing before me on 26 February 2026.
The total legal and collection fees now claimed are $7,085.60, up from $1,906.00 claimed on 4 September 2025. The unit owner disputes the collection charges as disproportionate to the outstanding levies initially sought, which has since been paid on 4 September 2025.
I consider the $1,906.00 claimed by Price Baker Berridge on 4 September 2025 to be payable to the body corporate pursuant to section 124 UTA.
Following the line of authorities set out at [13] and [14] above, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover the $1,906.00 as reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a statutory debt due by the owner.
The reasonableness of the legal and collection costs is viewed on a solicitor-client basis. Consequently, there the solicitor has reasonably charged their client (the body corporate) those costs for collecting the overdue levies, those very charges are also due and payable by the unit owner pursuant to section 124 UTA.
It was therefore in order for Price Baker Berridge to insists on payment of the full $1,906.00 as claimed by the solicitors on 4 September 2025 because they were reasonably and actually incurred on a solicitor-client basis.
As for the costs incurred after 4 September 2025, they were incurred in filing these proceedings to collect the legal fees of $1,906.00 and interest on the outstanding levies as set out at [10] and [11] above.
The legal costs incurred in in filing these proceedings to collect the legal fees of and interest are also payable by the unit owner, under section 127 UTA.
Section 127 Unit Titles Act 2010 provides as follows: Recovery of money expended where person at fault (1) This section applies if the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee. (2) Any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the expense, is recoverable as a debt due to the body corporate (less any amount already paid) by the person who was the unit owner at the time the expense became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.
Following BC 170989 v Anquila Holdings Ltd [2020] NZHC 758 at [75]), the elements needed for s 127 costs to be recoverable are when: (a) There is an act by the Body Corporate; (b) The Body Corporate must be required or authorised to do the act under the UTA or some other Act; (c) The act must be rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission by specified persons; (d) Those persons must be a unit owner, or his or her or its tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee
Applying section 127 Unit Titles Act 2020, I am satisfied that the Body Corporate is entitled to recover from the unit owner legal costs incurred in filing and prosecuting these proceedings to recover the initial $1,906.00 and interests of $103.98 as an “expense” incurred by the body corporate in doing an “act” that was rendered necessary by reason of “wilful or negligent act or omission” on the part of the unit owner in refusing and failing to pay the aforesaid collection costs and interest.
I am satisfied from the timesheets appended by the solicitors that the collection costs ordered in the table above including for the legal executive’s attendance at the hearing, and solicitor/client costs in filing and prosecuting these proceedings are reasonable.
Having been satisfied that the total costs charged by counsel for the body corporate and the body corporate secretary are reasonable on a solicitor-client basis, I do not have any discretion to waive any of those costs in favour of the defaulting unit owner.
In the upshot, sections 124 and 127 UTA prescribe a statutory debt in favour of the body corporate once levies are properly raised and payable; equally, legal and collection costs and interest become a statutory debt which accords no discretion on the Tribunal to waive or discount, despite the Tribunal exercising a substantial merits and justice jurisdiction pursuant to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
On the contrary, under section 85 RTA, the Tribunal is mandated to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter, including those principles of law set out above.
The Supreme Court n Gilbert v Body Corporate 162791 [2016] NZSC 61 [BC42] at paragraph [78] held that the UTA costs recovery provisions (including s 127) provided for reasonable solicitor/client costs to be recovered. In this regard, section 127 of the UTA does not differentiate between costs of legal representation or other expenses incurred by a body corporate such as the costs of a professional manager doing work above and beyond that manager’s standard management fee, due solely to the at-fault-party’s actions.
I therefore award the body corporate $8,011.58 which includes legal costs, hearing attendance, debt collection charges, interest and the Tribunal filing fee, as set out in the table above.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073545 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073545 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Unit Owner paid the levies on time?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Unit Owner paid the levies on time?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions