What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9038264?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9038264?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038264?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10187256-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9038264?

The tribunal order states: The application for costs is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9038264?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038264?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10187256-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Ponsonby, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9038264 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for costs is dismissed.
The application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
The Tribunal makes no further orders.
The application is now closed.

Reasons

On 5 September 2023, the Tribunal issued an order on this application. It made no substantive orders but left open the application for submissions on costs and for orders on any unresolved issues.
Within the time frame allowed the applicant has requested further orders and costs. Costs
Both parties have filed written submissions on costs.
The applicant has sought costs of $10,728.00 comprising costs for legal advice they received and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee ($3,300.00).
The respondent (unit owners) opposes costs.
Generally, costs for unrepresented parties lie where they fall. Costs for legal advice incurred before an application is made cannot be claimed. In limited situations, the Tribunal might consider an award of costs and disbursement for an unrepresented party, but not in a case such as this.
Costs might be awarded say where one party had acted in a vexatious manner. And before an award of costs is made, the party applying for them has to have been the successful party, either as applicant, or as the party that has successfully defended the application.
An important feature of a lay Tribunal such as this is that it is easy to access, has less of the formality of a Court, and does not result in the parties incurring legal fees.
I see no reason to depart from the usual practice that unrepresented parties should each bear their own costs.
The application for costs is dismissed.
So too is the application for reimbursement of the filing fee. The filing fee is reimbursed to a successful applicant. But in this case the Tribunal made no orders, for the reasons set out, and so the application cannot be considered to have been successful. Further orders
In my order dated 5 September 2023, I set out in some detail the difficulties the Tribunal faced making any enforceable orders on this application.
I noted that the Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It can only make orders under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that are enforceable.
On 19 February 2024, the applicant advised the registry that the commercial tenant Citadel Capital Limited has now moved back into the unit that is the subject of a commercial lease between it and the respondent. The applicant described this as ‘devastating news’.
That is a change of events since I used my order in September.
It seems that the applicant seeks some kind of declaratory judgment or declaration in anticipation of what might now happen.
That is not the role of the Tribunal. It has no statutory authority to make declaratory orders such as might be made in the High Court, nor any power of general declaration.
Section 78(1)(a) RTA enables the Tribunal to issue an order in the nature of a declaration, but that power is limited usually to issues of jurisdiction, for example, a declaration as to the status of a tenancy.
Like Courts, the Tribunal is reactive not proactive. It does not manage relationships between parties.
As I noted previously there are aggravations between the parties as unit owners in a development where ownership is equally split. I noted that the relationship issues are for them to resolve. I suggested how the remaining issues might be addressed, noting that the appointment of a manager might assist the functional management of the body corporate.
It is in neither of the unit owners’ interests to have simmering aggravations that remain unresolved.
If the applicant advises the respondent that their commercial tenant is interfering with the applicant’s quiet enjoyment of their unit, the respondent has a duty to act. But when I heard the application, that issue had resolved, as the commercial tenant had vacated. I cannot assume that disturbances by the commercial tenant will now begin again. But if they do, the respondent unit owner as the lessor of the unit must act.
Other than state the obvious (having set out the statutory responsibilities of a unit owner in my first order) there is nothing the Tribunal can do now. And the Tribunal has already suggested a way forward as to the other issues of complaint raised by the applicant. Conclusion
The application for costs is dismissed.
No order for reimbursement of the filing fee is made as the application was not wholly or mostly successful – the Tribunal made no orders.
There are no further orders that the Tribunal can properly make on the application.
The application is now closed.

Order

The application for costs is dismissed.
The application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
The Tribunal makes no further orders.
The application is now closed.

Reasons

On 5 September 2023, the Tribunal issued an order on this application. It made no substantive orders but left open the application for submissions on costs and for orders on any unresolved issues.
Within the time frame allowed the applicant has requested further orders and costs. Costs
Both parties have filed written submissions on costs.
The applicant has sought costs of $10,728.00 comprising costs for legal advice they received and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee ($3,300.00).
The respondent (unit owners) opposes costs.
Generally, costs for unrepresented parties lie where they fall. Costs for legal advice incurred before an application is made cannot be claimed. In limited situations, the Tribunal might consider an award of costs and disbursement for an unrepresented party, but not in a case such as this.
Costs might be awarded say where one party had acted in a vexatious manner. And before an award of costs is made, the party applying for them has to have been the successful party, either as applicant, or as the party that has successfully defended the application.
An important feature of a lay Tribunal such as this is that it is easy to access, has less of the formality of a Court, and does not result in the parties incurring legal fees.
I see no reason to depart from the usual practice that unrepresented parties should each bear their own costs.
The application for costs is dismissed.
So too is the application for reimbursement of the filing fee. The filing fee is reimbursed to a successful applicant. But in this case the Tribunal made no orders, for the reasons set out, and so the application cannot be considered to have been successful. Further orders
In my order dated 5 September 2023, I set out in some detail the difficulties the Tribunal faced making any enforceable orders on this application.
I noted that the Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It can only make orders under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that are enforceable.
On 19 February 2024, the applicant advised the registry that the commercial tenant Citadel Capital Limited has now moved back into the unit that is the subject of a commercial lease between it and the respondent. The applicant described this as ‘devastating news’.
That is a change of events since I used my order in September.
It seems that the applicant seeks some kind of declaratory judgment or declaration in anticipation of what might now happen.
That is not the role of the Tribunal. It has no statutory authority to make declaratory orders such as might be made in the High Court, nor any power of general declaration.
Section 78(1)(a) RTA enables the Tribunal to issue an order in the nature of a declaration, but that power is limited usually to issues of jurisdiction, for example, a declaration as to the status of a tenancy.
Like Courts, the Tribunal is reactive not proactive. It does not manage relationships between parties.
As I noted previously there are aggravations between the parties as unit owners in a development where ownership is equally split. I noted that the relationship issues are for them to resolve. I suggested how the remaining issues might be addressed, noting that the appointment of a manager might assist the functional management of the body corporate.
It is in neither of the unit owners’ interests to have simmering aggravations that remain unresolved.
If the applicant advises the respondent that their commercial tenant is interfering with the applicant’s quiet enjoyment of their unit, the respondent has a duty to act. But when I heard the application, that issue had resolved, as the commercial tenant had vacated. I cannot assume that disturbances by the commercial tenant will now begin again. But if they do, the respondent unit owner as the lessor of the unit must act.
Other than state the obvious (having set out the statutory responsibilities of a unit owner in my first order) there is nothing the Tribunal can do now. And the Tribunal has already suggested a way forward as to the other issues of complaint raised by the applicant. Conclusion
The application for costs is dismissed.
No order for reimbursement of the filing fee is made as the application was not wholly or mostly successful – the Tribunal made no orders.
There are no further orders that the Tribunal can properly make on the application.
The application is now closed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038264 — Unit Titles in Ponsonby, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038264 — Unit Titles in Ponsonby, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions