What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9075844?

The tribunal order states: Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizen Dong $1,050.50 immediately being

How much money was awarded in case 9075844?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9075844?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9075844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13217686-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9075844?

The tribunal order states: Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizen Dong $1,050.50 immediately being

How much money was awarded in case 9075844?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9075844?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9075844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13217686-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Fernhill, Queenstown Tenancy Tribunal Case 9075844 — Unit Titles

Order

Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizen Dong $1,050.50 immediately being legal costs on the unsuccessful application.

Reasons

This application was set for a telephone case conference on 20 February 2026.
I heard from the applicant Ms Joshi and from counsel for the respondent Mr Hutton.
I found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. I dismissed the application.
Counsel applied for costs. I set a timetable for submissions on costs.
Ms Joshi has responded to those submissions.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal on this issue. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel and is successful (as an applicant) or successfully defends the application (as a respondent). Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA, but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
This was not an interlocutory application. It was an application that was to be set for hearing. However, I held a preliminary case conference because the application raised several jurisdictional issues. I dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The case conference was akin to a preliminary hearing.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda 1 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 2 [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution to costs was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...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.
The Tribunal must have regard to these factors and to wider considerations such as the District Court scale costs, though it is not bound to make cost decisions solely based on the scale; the scale is a guide only.
And while the Tribunal requires details of the costs claimed, it is not required to undertake a forensic analysis of the time and cost records for the amount sought. 1 [2020] NZDC 3669 2 [1997] 3NZLR 143 Here, counsel for the respondent has provided the actual costs incurred for legal fees in relation to the application. They appear objectively reasonable. Analysis
Counsel for the respondent has firstly claimed costs on an indemnity basis - $3,934.57. Were this a claim by the body corporate for levy recovery the Tribunal would be required to award costs on that basis. But it is not.
Secondly, counsel for the respondent has claimed the equivalent of increased 2B scale costs - $1,575.75. Rule 14.3(b)(ii) of the District Court Rules allows the Court to make an order for increased costs where a party has taken ‘an unnecessary step or an argument that lacks merit’.
I have considered the submission that the increased scale costs should apply. I accept that the application never had any prospect of success. Had the applicant taken legal advice she would have been advised to withdraw the application. That said, the Tribunal is a lay tribunal, and parties sometimes seeks the Tribunal’s guidance when instead they should seek legal advice.
Counsel’s third submission is that equivalent 2B scale costs should be awarded - $1,050.50.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I find that the equivalent 2B scale costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case, given the actual costs incurred by the respondents.
Finally, I have removed Body Corporate 19019 as an applicant. As I explained in my order dated 20 February 2026, the Body Corporate was never the correct applicant and Ms Joshi as a unit owner was not authorised to make an application on its behalf. Result
Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizhen Dong $1050.50 for legal costs following the unsuccessful application.

Order

Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizen Dong $1,050.50 immediately being legal costs on the unsuccessful application.

Reasons

This application was set for a telephone case conference on 20 February 2026.
I heard from the applicant Ms Joshi and from counsel for the respondent Mr Hutton.
I found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. I dismissed the application.
Counsel applied for costs. I set a timetable for submissions on costs.
Ms Joshi has responded to those submissions.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal on this issue. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel and is successful (as an applicant) or successfully defends the application (as a respondent). Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA, but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
This was not an interlocutory application. It was an application that was to be set for hearing. However, I held a preliminary case conference because the application raised several jurisdictional issues. I dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The case conference was akin to a preliminary hearing.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda 1 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 2 [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution to costs was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...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.
The Tribunal must have regard to these factors and to wider considerations such as the District Court scale costs, though it is not bound to make cost decisions solely based on the scale; the scale is a guide only.
And while the Tribunal requires details of the costs claimed, it is not required to undertake a forensic analysis of the time and cost records for the amount sought. 1 [2020] NZDC 3669 2 [1997] 3NZLR 143 Here, counsel for the respondent has provided the actual costs incurred for legal fees in relation to the application. They appear objectively reasonable. Analysis
Counsel for the respondent has firstly claimed costs on an indemnity basis - $3,934.57. Were this a claim by the body corporate for levy recovery the Tribunal would be required to award costs on that basis. But it is not.
Secondly, counsel for the respondent has claimed the equivalent of increased 2B scale costs - $1,575.75. Rule 14.3(b)(ii) of the District Court Rules allows the Court to make an order for increased costs where a party has taken ‘an unnecessary step or an argument that lacks merit’.
I have considered the submission that the increased scale costs should apply. I accept that the application never had any prospect of success. Had the applicant taken legal advice she would have been advised to withdraw the application. That said, the Tribunal is a lay tribunal, and parties sometimes seeks the Tribunal’s guidance when instead they should seek legal advice.
Counsel’s third submission is that equivalent 2B scale costs should be awarded - $1,050.50.
Given the factors as set out in Holden, I find that the equivalent 2B scale costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case, given the actual costs incurred by the respondents.
Finally, I have removed Body Corporate 19019 as an applicant. As I explained in my order dated 20 February 2026, the Body Corporate was never the correct applicant and Ms Joshi as a unit owner was not authorised to make an application on its behalf. Result
Janaki Joshi must pay Wen Yu and Shizhen Dong $1050.50 for legal costs following the unsuccessful application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9075844 — Unit Titles in Fernhill, Queenstown

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9075844 — Unit Titles in Fernhill, Queenstown

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