What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9054564?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Tribunal declares that the parties agree “that operating

How much money was awarded in case 9054564?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9054564?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054564?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10997614-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9054564?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Tribunal declares that the parties agree “that operating

How much money was awarded in case 9054564?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9054564?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054564?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10997614-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Ellerslie, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9054564 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

By consent, the Tribunal declares that the parties agree “that operating massage parlours/escort services from the unit would breach s 80(1)(k) of the UTA and that the unit owner must not allow that”.

The Tribunal’s previous decision dated 25 September 2024 is replaced by this decision. The earlier decision is to be removed from publication.

Reasons

This matter was scheduled for a contested hearing before me on 25 September 2024.

However, the evening before the hearing, counsel for the body corporate emailed the Tribunal that the parties had settled the body corporate’s claim: The Applicant and Respondent have reached a settlement outside of the Tribunal. There will be no appearance by both parties tomorrow on this basis and there is no issue as to costs. Both parties agree to an order by consent to be issued by the Tribunal as follows: A declaration that Unit C will not be used for operating massage parlours / escort services which would otherwise be a breach of s80(1)(k) of the Unit Titles Act 2010.

The Tribunal issued a declaration in altered terms to the one sought. The Tribunal’s declaration bound only the unit owner (not subsequent unit owners) and the Tribunal itself did not declare breach of s 80(1)(k).

After the decision was issued, the parties asked the Tribunal to amend the wording of the declaration. The unit owner’s counsel sent an email about this on 27 September 2024. However, I missed the email, and it is only after counsel’s chasing email that I have seen it. I apologise for the delay in responding.

Counsel’s 27 September email states: Following correspondence between the parties, the following has been agreed:

A declaration be issued that: “the parties agree that operating massage parlours /escort services from the unit would breach s 80(1)(k) of the UTA and that the unit owner must not allow that.”;

The agreed declaration is conditional upon the Tribunal: a. excluded from its reasons any finding or inference that the respondent owner, Xiaojuan Cui operated or intends to operate a massage parlour /escort services from the unit; and b. including in its reasons: “the parties agree that there is no evidence that Xiaojuan Cui operated or intends to operate a massage parlour /escort services from the unit.” The parties and their respective counsel respectfully request that the proceedings be determined based on the above.

I am content to amend the declaration to record the parties’ agreement.

I record that the Tribunal did not hear evidence that the unit owner operated or intends to operate a massage parlour /escort services from the unit. The Tribunal makes no finding whatsoever in that regard.

The Tribunal formally confirms the parties’ advise that they “agree that there is no evidence that Xiaojuan Cui operated or intends to operate a massage parlour/escort services from the unit”.

Order

The Tribunal’s previous decision dated 25 September 2024 is replaced by this decision. The earlier decision is to be removed from publication.

Reasons

This matter was scheduled for a contested hearing before me on 25 September 2024.

Counsel’s 27 September email states: Following correspondence between the parties, the following has been agreed:

A declaration be issued that: “the parties agree that operating massage parlours /escort services from the unit would breach s 80(1)(k) of the UTA and that the unit owner must not allow that.”;

I am content to amend the declaration to record the parties’ agreement.

The Tribunal formally confirms the parties’ advise that they “agree that there is no evidence that Xiaojuan Cui operated or intends to operate a massage parlour/escort services from the unit”.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054564 — Unit Titles in Ellerslie, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054564 — Unit Titles in Ellerslie, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions