What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9077764 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 344046 $3,268.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9077764?

Costs – Body Corporate Manager’S Pre…: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: $12.00 awarded to landlord; ORDER Calculated As Follows Descript…: $1,836.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9077764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9077764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13290690-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9077764 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 344046 $3,268.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9077764?

Costs – Body Corporate Manager’S Pre…: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: $12.00 awarded to landlord; ORDER Calculated As Follows Descript…: $1,836.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9077764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9077764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13290690-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 9077764 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9077764 — net $3,268.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ORDER calculated as follows DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26	$1,836.00	ORDER calculated as follows DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26
Interest to 16.3.26	$12.00	Interest to 16.3.26
Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance	$920.00	Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance
Filing fee	$500.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,268.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,268.00

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 344046 $3,268.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26 Interest to 16.3.26 $1,836.00 $12.00 Filing fee$500.00 Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance $920.00 Total award$3,268.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $3,268.00
The unit owner’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Quinlan from Quay Body Corporate Management (the body corporate manager) represented the body corporate.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs, and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The unit owner has cross applied. She seeks a refund of all levies and insurance fees from 2016 to now. The body corporate’s application

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit 1 .
At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 7 November 2025 the body corporate determined the levies payable and calculated the unit owner's share according to her utility interest.
The body corporate fixed the due date for the levies to be paid (20 February 2026), and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date 2 . She is liable to pay the levies charged.

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 3 .
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. Ms Quinlan has provided the interest component for the levies that have been charged to the unit owner.
The invoice she provided details interest on all levies in arrears. There have been 2 previous orders addressing levies, one of which included interest. I am unable to carry forward the earlier awards as one of the orders at least has since been enforced.
Separately, Ms Quinlan has detailed the interest component on the unpaid levies sought today - $12.00 for the period 20.2.26 to 16.3.26. I have awarded that amount to the body corporate. 1 See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) 2 See section 124(1) UTA 3 See section 128 UTA

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

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 4 .
In Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 5 and in Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert 6 , the Court confirmed that 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. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
For reasons I will address later, the body corporate was put to the unnecessary expense of preparing its application and defending the unit owner’s application. It should not have been required to do either. I find that the costs claimed for preparation and for attendance are reasonable for a professional body corporate manager.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with its application (and has successfully defended the unit owner’s application) I have reimbursed the filing fee the body corporate had to pay 7 . The unit owner’s application
The unit owner has claimed a refund of all levies and insurance costs charged to her by the body corporate since 2016, when she purchased the property.
Her principal submission was that because her lawyer did not explain to her that she was purchasing a unit in a unit title development, and because she did not receive all the disclosure statements, she is therefore not liable to pay the levies and insurance costs that have been charged to her. She also alleges fraud. She claims that the body corporate has used fake documents to charge her levies since 2016.
There are 4 reasons why the unit owner’s application cannot succeed. First, the Limitation Act 2010 provides a defence to a claim for money where the claim is filed more than 6 years after the cause of action arose. The body corporate did not raise that as a defence, but it did not need to. The other reasons I will detail mean that the claim cannot succeed. The unit owner’s claim dates to 2016.
Second, the issues raised by the unit owner have already been decided by the Tribunal. In his decision dated 12 August 2024, Adjudicator Woodhouse 8 said:
Firstly, I agree with the Body Corporate representatives, that the usual 4 See section 124 UTA 5 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120 6 [2015] NZCA 185 7 Section 176(1) UTA and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 8 See [2024] NZTT 9051404 approach taken with disputes to body corporate levies, is that the unit owner pays the levies, but then disputes liability for some or all of the levies paid. If a unit owner pays levies but records that they are paid under protest, they are still able to pursue a claim against the body corporate in order to establish that they either don’t owe the amounts claimed or are owed other amounts by the Body Corporate to offset the levies. In this case, there is no cross-application filed by the Unit Owner, the only claim I have to consider is that from the Body Corporate about levies.
Secondly, it is clear that a significant issue taken by the Unit Owner relates to the title for her unit. Section 171(4) sets out the sort of claims that the Tenancy Tribunal cannot consider, and that includes “any dispute relating to the title of land”. In fact neither does the District Court have an ability to hear title disputes (section 172(3)), if Ms Tang wants to have that dispute adjudicated, she would need to file an application with the High Court (s173(1)(b)).
Thirdly, while the unit owner has a dispute as to the disclosure she has around the purchase of her unit in 2016, then that would also need to be the subject of an application on the part of the Unit Owner, but it is not immediately clear to me how that would absolve the Unit Owner of paying her levies (including insurance). Ultimately we have a system of property law in New Zealand where once a person is recorded on the title as owning a particular property, then they are deemed the owner for all purposes, and that must be the case here. Until Ms Tang is removed from the title, she will continue to have all the obligations of unit owners under the UTA – including to pay the levies when raised.
Fourthly, the Unit Owner considers that the insurance charges are too high. It is solely a matter for the Body Corporate to decide what policy of insurance they will take, but the UTA is clear, that the buildings must be insured by the Body Corporate. The decision around what insurance to take is normally one taken by the Body Corporate at the time of the AGM, and if Ms Tang wishes to engage in that discussion with the Body Corporate, the time to do it is at the AGM. I note the minutes record that Ms Tang was not present at the last two AGM’s.
The adjudicator mentioned that the unit owner could file a cross application which is what she did. But his comments remain directly relevant.
The Tribunal heard another claim by the body corporate for levies, insurance costs, interest, and recovery costs on 25 September 2025 9 . In that decision Adjudicator Brennan also set out the law as it relates to a body corporate’s claims for levies, interest, and costs.
As a matter of fact, Ms Tang is a unit owner under a unit title development and all the provisions of the UTA apply to her as an owner. The record of title establishes the unit title ownership.
That she considers she is not a unit owner and not bound by the UTA is irrelevant. Until such time as there is a change of ownership on the record of title she is.
Third, that Ms Tang considers she was negligently advised by her lawyer in 2016 is not an issue over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. That same applies to representations made by the real estate agent at the time of the sale. The 9 See [2025] NZTT 906544 Tribunal is not a Court of general civil jurisdiction. Her lawyer and the real estate agent are not listed in the class of persons set out in section 171(2) UTA which determines the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes in relation to a unit title development. Adjudicator Woodhouse foreshadowed that in his order.
Fourth, Ms Tang alleges fraud and the provision of fake documents at the time she purchased the unit in 2016. Again, that is not an issue the Tribunal can determine, since it involves an allegation of negligent advice and failed disclosure by her lawyer at the time of the purchase in 2016. I note that her lawyer has responded to that allegation, but I need not record that response here.
Possibly, there are legal avenues open to Ms Tang to pursue the issues arising from alleged negligent advice from both her lawyer and the real estate agent at the time she purchased her unit. She can take legal advice about that. But as matters stand, the record of title records her ownership as a unit owner in a unit title development. She is therefore liable for levies and costs such as insurance as determined by the body corporate and as voted on at each AGM.
For these reasons I must dismiss Ms Tang’s application as a unit owner against the body corporate. Comment
Until such time as a decision in a higher forum changes her ownership Ms Tang must accept that she is a unit owner in a unit title development as evidenced by the record of title. She is liable for levies and insurance costs properly raised by the body corporate following the process set out in the UTA and if she does not pay them, she is also liable for interest and collection costs.
Her potential civil action against her lawyer at the time of the purchase and against the real estate involved in the sale and purchase are separate matters on which she can take advice. They are not matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9077764 — net $3,268.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ORDER calculated as follows DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26	$1,836.00	ORDER calculated as follows DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26
Interest to 16.3.26	$12.00	Interest to 16.3.26
Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance	$920.00	Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance
Filing fee	$500.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,268.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,268.00

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 344046 $3,268.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies 20.9.25 – 20.2.26 Interest to 16.3.26 $1,836.00 $12.00 Filing fee$500.00 Costs – body corporate manager’s preparation and attendance $920.00 Total award$3,268.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $3,268.00
The unit owner’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Quinlan from Quay Body Corporate Management (the body corporate manager) represented the body corporate.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs, and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The unit owner has cross applied. She seeks a refund of all levies and insurance fees from 2016 to now. The body corporate’s application

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit 1 .
At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 7 November 2025 the body corporate determined the levies payable and calculated the unit owner's share according to her utility interest.
The body corporate fixed the due date for the levies to be paid (20 February 2026), and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date 2 . She is liable to pay the levies charged.

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 3 .
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. Ms Quinlan has provided the interest component for the levies that have been charged to the unit owner.
The invoice she provided details interest on all levies in arrears. There have been 2 previous orders addressing levies, one of which included interest. I am unable to carry forward the earlier awards as one of the orders at least has since been enforced.
Separately, Ms Quinlan has detailed the interest component on the unpaid levies sought today - $12.00 for the period 20.2.26 to 16.3.26. I have awarded that amount to the body corporate. 1 See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) 2 See section 124(1) UTA 3 See section 128 UTA

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

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 4 .
In Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 5 and in Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert 6 , the Court confirmed that 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. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
For reasons I will address later, the body corporate was put to the unnecessary expense of preparing its application and defending the unit owner’s application. It should not have been required to do either. I find that the costs claimed for preparation and for attendance are reasonable for a professional body corporate manager.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with its application (and has successfully defended the unit owner’s application) I have reimbursed the filing fee the body corporate had to pay 7 . The unit owner’s application
The unit owner has claimed a refund of all levies and insurance costs charged to her by the body corporate since 2016, when she purchased the property.
Her principal submission was that because her lawyer did not explain to her that she was purchasing a unit in a unit title development, and because she did not receive all the disclosure statements, she is therefore not liable to pay the levies and insurance costs that have been charged to her. She also alleges fraud. She claims that the body corporate has used fake documents to charge her levies since 2016.
There are 4 reasons why the unit owner’s application cannot succeed. First, the Limitation Act 2010 provides a defence to a claim for money where the claim is filed more than 6 years after the cause of action arose. The body corporate did not raise that as a defence, but it did not need to. The other reasons I will detail mean that the claim cannot succeed. The unit owner’s claim dates to 2016.
Second, the issues raised by the unit owner have already been decided by the Tribunal. In his decision dated 12 August 2024, Adjudicator Woodhouse 8 said:
Firstly, I agree with the Body Corporate representatives, that the usual 4 See section 124 UTA 5 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120 6 [2015] NZCA 185 7 Section 176(1) UTA and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 8 See [2024] NZTT 9051404 approach taken with disputes to body corporate levies, is that the unit owner pays the levies, but then disputes liability for some or all of the levies paid. If a unit owner pays levies but records that they are paid under protest, they are still able to pursue a claim against the body corporate in order to establish that they either don’t owe the amounts claimed or are owed other amounts by the Body Corporate to offset the levies. In this case, there is no cross-application filed by the Unit Owner, the only claim I have to consider is that from the Body Corporate about levies.
Secondly, it is clear that a significant issue taken by the Unit Owner relates to the title for her unit. Section 171(4) sets out the sort of claims that the Tenancy Tribunal cannot consider, and that includes “any dispute relating to the title of land”. In fact neither does the District Court have an ability to hear title disputes (section 172(3)), if Ms Tang wants to have that dispute adjudicated, she would need to file an application with the High Court (s173(1)(b)).
Thirdly, while the unit owner has a dispute as to the disclosure she has around the purchase of her unit in 2016, then that would also need to be the subject of an application on the part of the Unit Owner, but it is not immediately clear to me how that would absolve the Unit Owner of paying her levies (including insurance). Ultimately we have a system of property law in New Zealand where once a person is recorded on the title as owning a particular property, then they are deemed the owner for all purposes, and that must be the case here. Until Ms Tang is removed from the title, she will continue to have all the obligations of unit owners under the UTA – including to pay the levies when raised.
Fourthly, the Unit Owner considers that the insurance charges are too high. It is solely a matter for the Body Corporate to decide what policy of insurance they will take, but the UTA is clear, that the buildings must be insured by the Body Corporate. The decision around what insurance to take is normally one taken by the Body Corporate at the time of the AGM, and if Ms Tang wishes to engage in that discussion with the Body Corporate, the time to do it is at the AGM. I note the minutes record that Ms Tang was not present at the last two AGM’s.
The adjudicator mentioned that the unit owner could file a cross application which is what she did. But his comments remain directly relevant.
The Tribunal heard another claim by the body corporate for levies, insurance costs, interest, and recovery costs on 25 September 2025 9 . In that decision Adjudicator Brennan also set out the law as it relates to a body corporate’s claims for levies, interest, and costs.
As a matter of fact, Ms Tang is a unit owner under a unit title development and all the provisions of the UTA apply to her as an owner. The record of title establishes the unit title ownership.
That she considers she is not a unit owner and not bound by the UTA is irrelevant. Until such time as there is a change of ownership on the record of title she is.
Third, that Ms Tang considers she was negligently advised by her lawyer in 2016 is not an issue over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. That same applies to representations made by the real estate agent at the time of the sale. The 9 See [2025] NZTT 906544 Tribunal is not a Court of general civil jurisdiction. Her lawyer and the real estate agent are not listed in the class of persons set out in section 171(2) UTA which determines the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes in relation to a unit title development. Adjudicator Woodhouse foreshadowed that in his order.
Fourth, Ms Tang alleges fraud and the provision of fake documents at the time she purchased the unit in 2016. Again, that is not an issue the Tribunal can determine, since it involves an allegation of negligent advice and failed disclosure by her lawyer at the time of the purchase in 2016. I note that her lawyer has responded to that allegation, but I need not record that response here.
Possibly, there are legal avenues open to Ms Tang to pursue the issues arising from alleged negligent advice from both her lawyer and the real estate agent at the time she purchased her unit. She can take legal advice about that. But as matters stand, the record of title records her ownership as a unit owner in a unit title development. She is therefore liable for levies and costs such as insurance as determined by the body corporate and as voted on at each AGM.
For these reasons I must dismiss Ms Tang’s application as a unit owner against the body corporate. Comment
Until such time as a decision in a higher forum changes her ownership Ms Tang must accept that she is a unit owner in a unit title development as evidenced by the record of title. She is liable for levies and insurance costs properly raised by the body corporate following the process set out in the UTA and if she does not pay them, she is also liable for interest and collection costs.
Her potential civil action against her lawyer at the time of the purchase and against the real estate involved in the sale and purchase are separate matters on which she can take advice. They are not matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9077764 — Tenancy dispute in Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9077764 — Tenancy dispute in Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

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

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

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