What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9044144?

The tribunal order states: The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 9044144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044144?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9399012-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9044144?

The tribunal order states: The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 9044144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044144?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9399012-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9044144 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Rohini Jacob attended the case conference on behalf of the applicant. Michael Thomas attended on behalf of Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited.
The purpose of today’s case conference is to establish in the first place whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s claim which is filed under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
The applicant is a commercial tenant/lessee of Unit 74, 17 Drake Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 (‘the premises).
The applicant is seeking a full refund of the operating expenses paid to the current and former landlord/lessor on grounds that no services were provided to the premises for the past 11 years.
The applicant’s dispute arises out of the commercial deed of lease that was entered on 29 November 2011. On the face of it, the obligation to pay for operating expenses arises out of clause 3 (outgoings) of the deed of lease and the landlord/lessor is obliged to maintain the premises as set out under sections
1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the deed of lease.
There is no contractual nexus between the applicant and the body corporate’s service contractor Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited.
Any contractual nexus is solely between the applicant and their current and former landlords of the premises.
The claim against the former landlord Amin Afzaly and Drake Street Limited is not based on any agreement that is relevant to a unit title dispute under section 171 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
The applicant’s claim against the former landlord is founded directly under contract, ie., the deed of lease and subsequent deed of renewal of lease, but does not relate to any unit title dispute or any breach of provisions under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
For those reasons, this claim filed at the Tenancy Tribunal must fail for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044144 — State of repair in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044144 — State of repair in Auckland Central, 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