What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903915?

The tribunal order states: The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in

How much money was awarded in case 4903915?

ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stace…: $2,989.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10878075-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903915?

The tribunal order states: The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in

How much money was awarded in case 4903915?

ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stace…: $2,989.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10878075-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Lyndhurst Avenue, Maketu, Paengaroa 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903915 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903915. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of	$2,989.94		ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of

Order

ORDER

The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of $2,989.94 immediately.

Reasons

Background

This costs determination should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s orders dated 8 August 2024 and Order (with corrigendum) issued on 26 August 2024.
In those orders, the Tribunal granted possession of the premises at 26 Lyndhurst Avenue, Maketu, Paengaroa 3189, to The Te Arawa Lakes Trust (the Applicant) under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Applicant was wholly successful in its application for possession. The Respondent, Ms Stacey Walls, did not appear at the hearing despite being duly served. Application for Costs
The Applicant seeks an award of costs totalling $2,989.94, comprising:
1.Legal fees adjusted according to the District Court Rules 2014 (DCR).
2.Disbursements including the application fee and process server costs.
The Applicant provided a detailed schedule of costs. Legal Framework
Jurisdiction to Award Costs
Section 102(2) of the RTA states that: “The Tribunal may make an order of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following circumstances: (a) on the application of the party against whom the order is sought: (b) in any other case, if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in the special circumstances of the case.”
Section 102(3)(b) of the RTA allows the Tribunal to order: “...that any party pay to the other party the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”
The Tribunal has discretion to award costs where a party is represented by counsel, and it is just to do so. Principles for Awarding Costs
The leading case of Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd v Levin Development Enterprises Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 establishes that: 1
1.Costs awards should be a reasonable contribution to costs actually and reasonably incurred.
2.Factors to consider include: a. The nature and complexity of the proceedings. b. The time required for effective preparation. c. The conduct of the parties.
In French v Ryan [2011] NZDC 160, [2011] DCR 542, the District Court suggested that the Tribunal may refer to the District Court Rules as a guide when determining costs. 2 1 Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd v Holden [1997] 3 NZLR at 149-153 2 See also. Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5. Actual Costs Incurred
The Applicant's counsel provided a schedule of costs based on Category 2B proceedings under the District Court Rules 2014: StepTime AllocatedDaily RateAmount Preparing application, affidavits, submissions
5 days$1,910.00/day$2,865.00 Pre-hearing preparation0.5 days$1,910.00/day$955.00 Appearance for formal proof hearing
25 days$1,910.00/day$477.50 Subtotal (Before Adjustment)$4,297.50 Adjustment for Tribunal Proceedings
Recognising that Tribunal proceedings are intended to be more accessible and cost-effective than higher courts, the Applicant appropriately applied a 40% reduction to the subtotal, as follows: 40% of $4,297.50 = $1,719.00 Adjusted subtotal: $4,297.50 - $1,719.00 = $2,578.50 Disbursements
The Applicant incurred the following disbursements: Application filing fee: $20.44 Process server fee: $391.00 Total Disbursements: $411.44
The total costs claimed are as follows: Adjusted costs claim: $2,578.50 Disbursements: $411.44 Total: $2,989.94 Reasonableness of Costs
The proceedings involved securing possession under section 65 of the RTA, which allows for eviction of squatters or trespassers. While the legal issues were straightforward, the matter was important to the Applicant as it concerned regaining possession of its property, which it could not lawfully do without a Possession Order.
The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and did not engage with the proceedings, despite being properly served. This lack of engagement necessitated additional steps by the Applicant, including preparing pleadings and engaging a process server to ensure proper service.
Given the legal nature of the proceedings and the need to follow proper procedure, it was reasonable for the Applicant to engage legal counsel.
In, the Tribunal considered that:
1. Awards of costs in the Tribunal typically range between 40-70% of actual costs. 3
2. A figure of 60% is regarded as average.
Applying a 40% reduction to the costs aligns with the lower end of this range, which is appropriate given the straightforward nature of the case.
The costs claimed do not exceed the actual costs incurred, satisfying Rule
2(1)(f) of the DCR.
Against that background, the Tribunal finds that the total costs of $2,989.94 are reasonable and appropriate.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903915. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of	$2,989.94		ORDER ORDER 1. The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of

Order

ORDER

The Respondent, Stacey Walls, is to pay costs to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in the amount of $2,989.94 immediately.

Reasons

Background

This costs determination should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s orders dated 8 August 2024 and Order (with corrigendum) issued on 26 August 2024.
In those orders, the Tribunal granted possession of the premises at 26 Lyndhurst Avenue, Maketu, Paengaroa 3189, to The Te Arawa Lakes Trust (the Applicant) under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Applicant was wholly successful in its application for possession. The Respondent, Ms Stacey Walls, did not appear at the hearing despite being duly served. Application for Costs
The Applicant seeks an award of costs totalling $2,989.94, comprising:
1.Legal fees adjusted according to the District Court Rules 2014 (DCR).
2.Disbursements including the application fee and process server costs.
The Applicant provided a detailed schedule of costs. Legal Framework
Jurisdiction to Award Costs
Section 102(2) of the RTA states that: “The Tribunal may make an order of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following circumstances: (a) on the application of the party against whom the order is sought: (b) in any other case, if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in the special circumstances of the case.”
Section 102(3)(b) of the RTA allows the Tribunal to order: “...that any party pay to the other party the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”
The Tribunal has discretion to award costs where a party is represented by counsel, and it is just to do so. Principles for Awarding Costs
The leading case of Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd v Levin Development Enterprises Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 establishes that: 1
1.Costs awards should be a reasonable contribution to costs actually and reasonably incurred.
2.Factors to consider include: a. The nature and complexity of the proceedings. b. The time required for effective preparation. c. The conduct of the parties.
In French v Ryan [2011] NZDC 160, [2011] DCR 542, the District Court suggested that the Tribunal may refer to the District Court Rules as a guide when determining costs. 2 1 Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd v Holden [1997] 3 NZLR at 149-153 2 See also. Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5. Actual Costs Incurred
The Applicant's counsel provided a schedule of costs based on Category 2B proceedings under the District Court Rules 2014: StepTime AllocatedDaily RateAmount Preparing application, affidavits, submissions
5 days$1,910.00/day$2,865.00 Pre-hearing preparation0.5 days$1,910.00/day$955.00 Appearance for formal proof hearing
25 days$1,910.00/day$477.50 Subtotal (Before Adjustment)$4,297.50 Adjustment for Tribunal Proceedings
Recognising that Tribunal proceedings are intended to be more accessible and cost-effective than higher courts, the Applicant appropriately applied a 40% reduction to the subtotal, as follows: 40% of $4,297.50 = $1,719.00 Adjusted subtotal: $4,297.50 - $1,719.00 = $2,578.50 Disbursements
The Applicant incurred the following disbursements: Application filing fee: $20.44 Process server fee: $391.00 Total Disbursements: $411.44
The total costs claimed are as follows: Adjusted costs claim: $2,578.50 Disbursements: $411.44 Total: $2,989.94 Reasonableness of Costs
The proceedings involved securing possession under section 65 of the RTA, which allows for eviction of squatters or trespassers. While the legal issues were straightforward, the matter was important to the Applicant as it concerned regaining possession of its property, which it could not lawfully do without a Possession Order.
The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and did not engage with the proceedings, despite being properly served. This lack of engagement necessitated additional steps by the Applicant, including preparing pleadings and engaging a process server to ensure proper service.
Given the legal nature of the proceedings and the need to follow proper procedure, it was reasonable for the Applicant to engage legal counsel.
In, the Tribunal considered that:
1. Awards of costs in the Tribunal typically range between 40-70% of actual costs. 3
2. A figure of 60% is regarded as average.
Applying a 40% reduction to the costs aligns with the lower end of this range, which is appropriate given the straightforward nature of the case.
The costs claimed do not exceed the actual costs incurred, satisfying Rule
2(1)(f) of the DCR.
Against that background, the Tribunal finds that the total costs of $2,989.94 are reasonable and appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903915 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Lyndhurst Avenue, Maketu, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903915 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Lyndhurst Avenue, Maketu, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions