What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4882080?

The tribunal order states: Pemo Sangye Theodore must pay Thilo Kellner $9,000.00 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 4882080?

Costs: $9,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10749983-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4882080?

The tribunal order states: Pemo Sangye Theodore must pay Thilo Kellner $9,000.00 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 4882080?

Costs: $9,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10749983-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43A Muster Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882080 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882080 — net $9,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs	$9,000.00	Costs
Net award	$9,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,000.00

This matter was part heard on 25 July 2024.The parties were invited to file a memoranda on the issue of res judicata and the principal in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 HARE 100, as it appeared that the tenant had filed previous claims with the Tribunal (TT4630656) in relation to the same premises and landlord.

The landlord filed a memorandum. The tenant did not.

By order dated 11 August 2024 the tenant application was dismissed. The parties were invited to try and settle the issue of costs, the landlord having been represented, failing which they were to file memoranda as to costs by no later than 4pm on 21 August 2024 for the landlord and 4pm on Friday 23 August 2024 for the tenant. An order on the issue of costs would then be made without the requirement for a further hearing.

The landlord has filed a memorandum. The tenant has not.

The landlord seeks an award of costs of $14,347.98 being costs to 8 August 2024 and a further $2,168.90 being costs since 8 August 2024, being a total of $16,516.88.

Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) RTA provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party.

In Body Corporate No 209774 v Wu [2018] NZDC 19792, the District Court held that this provision does not entitle a successful non-represented party to claim costs against a legally represented party, even where they have incurred legal costs prior to the hearing.

In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009). In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143, the High Court held that ‘reasonable costs’ means a reasonable contribution and not a mere gesture. It considered that a contribution in the range of 40% to 70% would likely satisfy this requirement.

In David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ 162 the High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.

Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance.

Taking into consideration the factors above, I note that the hearing time was modest. The only hearing being the hearing on 25 July 2024 which the landlord’s counsel attended by teleconference.

The compensation sought by the tenant in her application to the Tribunal was $51,577.00.

The issues were not in and of themselves of any substantial significance.

The issues were not legally or factually complex and had been addressed by the landlord’s counsel prior to the hearing.

I accept that some time would have been required to effectively prepare for the hearing on 25 July 2024, in the event that the matter had proceeded.

The actual costs are as set out in the memorandum of counsel.

I consider that an aggravating factor is the tenant’s failure to withdraw the proceedings on being alerted to the defect in her application by counsel . I accept that as a lay person, the tenant may not have grasped the difficulties that she faced in her application. The tenant’s failure to try to resolve the issue of costs is also an aggravating factor.

Taking all the factors into account, the tenant is ordered to pay costs to the landlord of $9,000.00.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882080 — net $9,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs	$9,000.00	Costs
Net award	$9,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,000.00

Order

Pemo Sangye Theodore must pay Thilo Kellner $9,000.00 immediately, being costs awarded to the landlord.

Reasons

This matter was part heard on 25 July 2024.The parties were invited to file a memoranda on the issue of res judicata and the principal in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 HARE 100, as it appeared that the tenant had filed previous claims with the Tribunal (TT4630656) in relation to the same premises and landlord.
The landlord filed a memorandum. The tenant did not.
By order dated 11 August 2024 the tenant application was dismissed. The parties were invited to try and settle the issue of costs, the landlord having been represented, failing which they were to file memoranda as to costs by no later than 4pm on 21 August 2024 for the landlord and 4pm on Friday 23 August 2024 for the tenant. An order on the issue of costs would then be made without the requirement for a further hearing.
The landlord has filed a memorandum. The tenant has not.
The landlord seeks an award of costs of $14,347.98 being costs to 8 August 2024 and a further $2,168.90 being costs since 8 August 2024, being a total of $16,516.88.
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) RTA provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party.
In Body Corporate No 209774 v Wu [2018] NZDC 19792, the District Court held that this provision does not entitle a successful non-represented party to claim costs against a legally represented party, even where they have incurred legal costs prior to the hearing.
In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009). In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143, the High Court held that ‘reasonable costs’ means a reasonable contribution and not a mere gesture. It considered that a contribution in the range of 40% to 70% would likely satisfy this requirement.
In David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ 162 the High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.
Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance.
Taking into consideration the factors above, I note that the hearing time was modest. The only hearing being the hearing on 25 July 2024 which the landlord’s counsel attended by teleconference.
The compensation sought by the tenant in her application to the Tribunal was $51,577.00.
The issues were not in and of themselves of any substantial significance.
The issues were not legally or factually complex and had been addressed by the landlord’s counsel prior to the hearing.
I accept that some time would have been required to effectively prepare for the hearing on 25 July 2024, in the event that the matter had proceeded.
The actual costs are as set out in the memorandum of counsel.
I consider that an aggravating factor is the tenant’s failure to withdraw the proceedings on being alerted to the defect in her application by counsel . I accept that as a lay person, the tenant may not have grasped the difficulties that she faced in her application. The tenant’s failure to try to resolve the issue of costs is also an aggravating factor.
Taking all the factors into account, the tenant is ordered to pay costs to the landlord of $9,000.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882080 — Tenancy dispute at 43A Muster Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882080 — Tenancy dispute at 43A Muster Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions