What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5237512?

The tribunal order states: of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the

How much money was awarded in case 5237512?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12140033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5237512?

The tribunal order states: of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the

How much money was awarded in case 5237512?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12140033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Victoria, Rotorua Tenancy Tribunal Case 5237512 — Rent arrears

Order

of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following cases: (a) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought: (b) where any of the parties was represented by counsel:

(c) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in dispute ought reasonably to have been settled before the Tenancy Mediator but that the party against whom the order is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in proceedings before a Tenancy Mediator or acted in any such proceedings in a contemptuous or improper manner: (d) where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.

Mr [landlord’s name] submits that s 102(2)(a) Mr Waikato’s seeking an adjournment of the hearing and applying for a rehearing were frivolous or vexatious or should not have been brought.

In the opinion of the Tribunal, the application for an adjournment and the application for an adjournment were not frivolous, vexatious, or ought not to have been brought.

Ms Herbert made reasonable arguments for an adjournment and for a rehearing. I consider the arguments and the rehearing application did have merit even though I rejected them. Ms Herbert fought hard for Mr Waikato as she ought to have; it was appropriate. At the heart of Mr Waikato’s applications was a desire to make a cross- application and to set off the cross-application claims against the rent arrears. Mr Waikato was entitled to bring such a claim and to argue that the claim should be heard together with the termination for rent arrears claim. There was nothing improper, frivolous, or vexing in Mr Waikato’s actions in respect to the litigation that I am aware of.

Section 102(2)(a) does not apply.

Mr Waikato was assisted by Meredith Herbert from the Rotorua Community Law Centre. In its original decision, the Tribunal made the mistake of referring to Ms Herbert as a lawyer. In Mr Waikato’s application for rehearing she was at pains to convey to the Tribunal that she is not a lawyer, she is a legal case worker. Since Ms Herbert is not a lawyer she cannot be counsel (a lawyer admitted to the bar with a practising certificate).

That being so s 102(2)(b) does not apply to allow costs.

Mr [landlord] sought to rely on term in the tenancy agreement that states:

Tenants shall pay 25% as cost of recovery of rental arrears and any damages caused by tenant.

The term is the nature of a requirement the tenant to pay liquidated damages in the sum of 25 per cent of the monetary order. I agree with Ms Herbert’s submission that this is inconsistent with s 102 of the RTA and is therefore of no effect pursuant to s 11(3) of the RTA.

It follows that Mr [landlord] cannot be awarded costs based on the term, which is unenforceable.

Mr [landlord] refers to cases. He has not provided copies of the cases or case summaries.

I briefly searched for Mr [landlord]’s cases. I could not find case “9010201” on our system. The Gueirard is a Unit Titles Act in which counsel appeared. “4271436” involved counsel. “9018322” involved counsel. I could not find “CIV 2019-004-001125”.

Of the cases Mr [landlord] refers to which I could find, none were on point. In any event, s 102 is clear in its terms. Conclusion

The Tribunal does not have the power to award costs under s 102 of the RTA.

The application for costs must be dismissed.

Non-publication is granted for the

Order

Mr [landlord’s name] submits that s 102(2)(a) Mr Waikato’s seeking an adjournment of the hearing and applying for a rehearing were frivolous or vexatious or should not have been brought.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the application for an adjournment and the application for an adjournment were not frivolous, vexatious, or ought not to have been brought.
Ms Herbert made reasonable arguments for an adjournment and for a rehearing. I consider the arguments and the rehearing application did have merit even though I rejected them. Ms Herbert fought hard for Mr Waikato as she ought to have; it was appropriate. At the heart of Mr Waikato’s applications was a desire to make a cross- application and to set off the cross-application claims against the rent arrears. Mr Waikato was entitled to bring such a claim and to argue that the claim should be heard together with the termination for rent arrears claim. There was nothing improper, frivolous, or vexing in Mr Waikato’s actions in respect to the litigation that I am aware of.
Section 102(2)(a) does not apply.
Mr Waikato was assisted by Meredith Herbert from the Rotorua Community Law Centre. In its original decision, the Tribunal made the mistake of referring to Ms Herbert as a lawyer. In Mr Waikato’s application for rehearing she was at pains to convey to the Tribunal that she is not a lawyer, she is a legal case worker. Since Ms Herbert is not a lawyer she cannot be counsel (a lawyer admitted to the bar with a practising certificate).
That being so s 102(2)(b) does not apply to allow costs.
Mr [landlord] sought to rely on term in the tenancy agreement that states:
Tenants shall pay 25% as cost of recovery of rental arrears and any damages caused by tenant.
The term is the nature of a requirement the tenant to pay liquidated damages in the sum of 25 per cent of the monetary order. I agree with Ms Herbert’s submission that this is inconsistent with s 102 of the RTA and is therefore of no effect pursuant to s 11(3) of the RTA.
It follows that Mr [landlord] cannot be awarded costs based on the term, which is unenforceable.
Mr [landlord] refers to cases. He has not provided copies of the cases or case summaries.
I briefly searched for Mr [landlord]’s cases. I could not find case “9010201” on our system. The Gueirard is a Unit Titles Act in which counsel appeared. “4271436” involved counsel. “9018322” involved counsel. I could not find “CIV 2019-004-001125”.
Of the cases Mr [landlord] refers to which I could find, none were on point. In any event, s 102 is clear in its terms. Conclusion
The Tribunal does not have the power to award costs under s 102 of the RTA.
The application for costs must be dismissed.
Non-publication is granted for the

Reasons

given in the Tribunal’s substantive decision. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237512 — Rent arrears in Victoria, Rotorua

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237512 — Rent arrears in Victoria, Rotorua

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