What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073804 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 9073804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073804?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12994462-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073804 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 9073804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073804?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12994462-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Wairau Valley, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9073804 — Unit Titles

Reasons

Both parties attended the case management conference today.

Body Corporate 156990 (‘the Applicant BC’) owns the unit title development at 18 Link Drive whereas Body Corporate 200158 (‘the Respondent BC’) owns the unit title development at 20 Link Drive.

The Applicant BC has applied for a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal to compel the Respondent BC to enforce the body corporate operational rules of 20 Link Drive, specifically “Section 10 Rubbish and Pest Control”, to stop their occupiers from creating a nuisance in the form of dumping of rubbish on, near, and allowing escape of, rubbish on to the shared driveway/easement of 18 and 20 Link Drive.

Issue arises first and foremost as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant’s BC’s claims against the Respondent BC.

Section 171 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes arising between any persons “of the kind listed in subsection (2)” which includes “a body corporate” in relation to “a unit title development”.

The claim and dispute between the parties are not part of the same unit title development.

The Applicant BC is not a subsidiary body corporate of the Respondent BC. Neither is the Respondent BC a subsidiary body corporate of the Applicant BC.

The relationship between the Applicant BC and the Respondent BC are essentially property owners of neighbouring/adjoining properties which are autonomous and independent to each other. The fact that both bodies corporate shares a common driveway or right of way or easement does not bring the parties within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Unit Titles Act 2010.

In Link Health and Fitness Limited, Scott Macdonald v Body Corporate 200158 [2025] NZTT 9068524, a similar claim was made against the Respondent BC at the Tenancy Tribunal. Adjudicator R Kee in his order dated 26 September 2025 struck out the applicants’ claim which is grounded on nuisance against the neighbouring unit title development’s body corporate. The Tribunal stated at [6] that “the applicant leases a unit in the property next door to the body corporate. It is not “of the kind” of persons listed under s 171(2). It follows, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.”

Further, there does not appear to be any contractual relationship between the two bodies corporate before me which might give rise to a claim founded on contract to enable such a claim to be lodged at the Disputes Tribunal. The Applicant BC’s claim appears to be founded in the tort of nuisance that does not involve property loss, damage or destruction in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal in tort. I hasten to add that the current claims appear to be also beyond the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988.

The Applicant BC’s claims ought to be filed at the District Court in its ordinary civil jurisdiction. The High Court also has inherent jurisdiction to hear the Applicant BC’s claims.

However, the Tenancy Tribunal simply does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter because the Applicant BC’s unit title development is next door to the Respondent BC which offending units and unit title development are not part of the Applicant BC’s unit title development.

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the case management conference today.
Body Corporate 156990 (‘the Applicant BC’) owns the unit title development at 18 Link Drive whereas Body Corporate 200158 (‘the Respondent BC’) owns the unit title development at 20 Link Drive.
The Applicant BC has applied for a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal to compel the Respondent BC to enforce the body corporate operational rules of 20 Link Drive, specifically “Section 10 Rubbish and Pest Control”, to stop their occupiers from creating a nuisance in the form of dumping of rubbish on, near, and allowing escape of, rubbish on to the shared driveway/easement of 18 and 20 Link Drive.
Issue arises first and foremost as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant’s BC’s claims against the Respondent BC.
Section 171 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes arising between any persons “of the kind listed in subsection (2)” which includes “a body corporate” in relation to “a unit title development”.
The claim and dispute between the parties are not part of the same unit title development.
The Applicant BC is not a subsidiary body corporate of the Respondent BC. Neither is the Respondent BC a subsidiary body corporate of the Applicant BC.
The relationship between the Applicant BC and the Respondent BC are essentially property owners of neighbouring/adjoining properties which are autonomous and independent to each other. The fact that both bodies corporate shares a common driveway or right of way or easement does not bring the parties within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
In Link Health and Fitness Limited, Scott Macdonald v Body Corporate 200158 [2025] NZTT 9068524, a similar claim was made against the Respondent BC at the Tenancy Tribunal. Adjudicator R Kee in his order dated 26 September 2025 struck out the applicants’ claim which is grounded on nuisance against the neighbouring unit title development’s body corporate. The Tribunal stated at [6] that “the applicant leases a unit in the property next door to the body corporate. It is not “of the kind” of persons listed under s 171(2). It follows, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.”
Further, there does not appear to be any contractual relationship between the two bodies corporate before me which might give rise to a claim founded on contract to enable such a claim to be lodged at the Disputes Tribunal. The Applicant BC’s claim appears to be founded in the tort of nuisance that does not involve property loss, damage or destruction in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal in tort. I hasten to add that the current claims appear to be also beyond the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988.
The Applicant BC’s claims ought to be filed at the District Court in its ordinary civil jurisdiction. The High Court also has inherent jurisdiction to hear the Applicant BC’s claims.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal simply does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter because the Applicant BC’s unit title development is next door to the Respondent BC which offending units and unit title development are not part of the Applicant BC’s unit title development.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073804 — Unit Titles in Wairau Valley, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073804 — Unit Titles in Wairau Valley, Auckland

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