What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073684 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 164739 must pay [The party] $1,000.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9073684?

Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; ORDER Calculated As Follows Descript…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13796649-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073684 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 164739 must pay [The party] $1,000.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9073684?

Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; ORDER Calculated As Follows Descript…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13796649-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Freemans Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9073684 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9073684. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER calculated as follows Descriptions Applicant Respondent	$500.00		ORDER calculated as follows Descriptions Applicant Respondent
Filing Fee	$500.00		Filing Fee

Order

Body Corporate 164739 must pay [The party] $1,000.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

Descriptions Applicant Respondent

Compensation for cutting down a branch of the olive tree

$500.00

Filing Fee $500.00 Total award $1,000.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The unit owner says that on 8 May 2025, the Body Corporate Committee for BC164739 gave a landscaper permission to cut his olive tree from the public footpath into his private garden without his consent.
The tree was located entirely on the unit owner’s private property and not on any common property.
I prefer the evidence from the body corporate that the branch was overhanging onto the footpath and due to a genuine mistake, the gardener had pruned the overhanging branch without the unit owner’s permission. 9073684 2
The body corporate has duly acknowledged the mistake and offence to the unit, offering appropriate recompense. This was rejected by the unit owner.
At the hearing, the unit owner seeks compensation of $10,000 against the body corporate.
The unit owner made the following personal impact statement: I make this statement to explain the personal impact that the cutting of my olive tree and the subsequent handling of the matter has had on me. The olive tree was not simply a plant. It was a grafted olive tree capable of producing three different varieties of olives. It was a special gift from my godmother, who has since passed away. Because of that, the tree held significant sentimental value to me that cannot be measured by its purchase price or replaced by buying another tree. When I discovered that the tree had been cut, I was shocked and upset. The tree was located within my private garden area, and I had never given permission for it to be cut or interfered with. I felt that my private property and personal space had been violated. What has been particularly difficult for me is that the issue has never felt as though it was treated with the seriousness that it deserved. From my perspective, my concerns were repeatedly dismissed, and the significance of the damage was minimized by describing it as merely a twig or minor trimming. This was distressing because the photographs clearly show that the cut affected a significant part of the tree. The tree was important to me not only because of its uniqueness as a grafted olive tree but also because it represented a connection to someone I loved and who is no longer alive. That loss cannot simply be remedied by offering to purchase another olive tree. The ongoing dispute has also caused me considerable stress. I have spent many hours gathering documents, preparing evidence, responding to correspondence, and attempting to understand the legal and procedural requirements involved in bringing this matter before the Tribunal. As an individual owner, I have found the process overwhelming at times. I have also felt frustrated by what I believe are inconsistencies in the explanations that have been provided regarding how and why the tree was cut. Rather than receiving a straightforward acknowledgement of what occurred, I have felt compelled to continue pursuing the matter in order to obtain answers and accountability. This dispute has affected my peace of mind and enjoyment of my home. My garden is a place that is important to me, and knowing that a unique and sentimental tree was interfered with without my consent has caused me ongoing disappointment and distress. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to take into account not only the physical damage to the tree but also the personal and emotional impact that the incident and its aftermath have had on me. 9073684 3
I have had regard to the personal and emotional impact that the incident and its aftermath have had on the unit owner who is clearly distressed about the incident.
However, a determination from the Tribunal on what is an appropriate quantum to award the unit owner must be grounded on the law of damages, as far as money can address the loss.
I find that $500.00 is a reasonable and appropriate amount of compensation for the replacement of the olive tree, including general damages for the stress and inconvenience that the unit owner has suffered.
That is the extent that the law and the Tribunal can award the unit owner. To award anything more is to overstep the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to apply not only equity and good conscience, but also the relevant law to the case.
There is no benefit in prolonging the suffering of all parties in protracted legal proceedings.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this Unit Titles development case. Proportionality is a major factor for my consideration as well.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between parties to the dispute.
The Tribunal must determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Because the unit owner has succeeded with the claim for compensation of the damaged/destruction of the tree of $500.00, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9073684. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER calculated as follows Descriptions Applicant Respondent	$500.00		ORDER calculated as follows Descriptions Applicant Respondent
Filing Fee	$500.00		Filing Fee

Order

Body Corporate 164739 must pay [The party] $1,000.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

Descriptions Applicant Respondent

Compensation for cutting down a branch of the olive tree

$500.00

Filing Fee $500.00 Total award $1,000.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The unit owner says that on 8 May 2025, the Body Corporate Committee for BC164739 gave a landscaper permission to cut his olive tree from the public footpath into his private garden without his consent.
The tree was located entirely on the unit owner’s private property and not on any common property.
I prefer the evidence from the body corporate that the branch was overhanging onto the footpath and due to a genuine mistake, the gardener had pruned the overhanging branch without the unit owner’s permission. 9073684 2
The body corporate has duly acknowledged the mistake and offence to the unit, offering appropriate recompense. This was rejected by the unit owner.
At the hearing, the unit owner seeks compensation of $10,000 against the body corporate.
The unit owner made the following personal impact statement: I make this statement to explain the personal impact that the cutting of my olive tree and the subsequent handling of the matter has had on me. The olive tree was not simply a plant. It was a grafted olive tree capable of producing three different varieties of olives. It was a special gift from my godmother, who has since passed away. Because of that, the tree held significant sentimental value to me that cannot be measured by its purchase price or replaced by buying another tree. When I discovered that the tree had been cut, I was shocked and upset. The tree was located within my private garden area, and I had never given permission for it to be cut or interfered with. I felt that my private property and personal space had been violated. What has been particularly difficult for me is that the issue has never felt as though it was treated with the seriousness that it deserved. From my perspective, my concerns were repeatedly dismissed, and the significance of the damage was minimized by describing it as merely a twig or minor trimming. This was distressing because the photographs clearly show that the cut affected a significant part of the tree. The tree was important to me not only because of its uniqueness as a grafted olive tree but also because it represented a connection to someone I loved and who is no longer alive. That loss cannot simply be remedied by offering to purchase another olive tree. The ongoing dispute has also caused me considerable stress. I have spent many hours gathering documents, preparing evidence, responding to correspondence, and attempting to understand the legal and procedural requirements involved in bringing this matter before the Tribunal. As an individual owner, I have found the process overwhelming at times. I have also felt frustrated by what I believe are inconsistencies in the explanations that have been provided regarding how and why the tree was cut. Rather than receiving a straightforward acknowledgement of what occurred, I have felt compelled to continue pursuing the matter in order to obtain answers and accountability. This dispute has affected my peace of mind and enjoyment of my home. My garden is a place that is important to me, and knowing that a unique and sentimental tree was interfered with without my consent has caused me ongoing disappointment and distress. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to take into account not only the physical damage to the tree but also the personal and emotional impact that the incident and its aftermath have had on me. 9073684 3
I have had regard to the personal and emotional impact that the incident and its aftermath have had on the unit owner who is clearly distressed about the incident.
However, a determination from the Tribunal on what is an appropriate quantum to award the unit owner must be grounded on the law of damages, as far as money can address the loss.
I find that $500.00 is a reasonable and appropriate amount of compensation for the replacement of the olive tree, including general damages for the stress and inconvenience that the unit owner has suffered.
That is the extent that the law and the Tribunal can award the unit owner. To award anything more is to overstep the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to apply not only equity and good conscience, but also the relevant law to the case.
There is no benefit in prolonging the suffering of all parties in protracted legal proceedings.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this Unit Titles development case. Proportionality is a major factor for my consideration as well.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between parties to the dispute.
The Tribunal must determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Because the unit owner has succeeded with the claim for compensation of the damaged/destruction of the tree of $500.00, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073684 — Property damage in Freemans Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073684 — Property damage in Freemans Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions