What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9055664?

The tribunal order states: David Robertson Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title

How much money was awarded in case 9055664?

ApplicantRespondent Costs Following…: $2,349.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055664?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253422-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9055664?

The tribunal order states: David Robertson Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title

How much money was awarded in case 9055664?

ApplicantRespondent Costs Following…: $2,349.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055664?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253422-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Browns Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9055664 — Unit Titles

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9055664. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application	$2,349.43		ApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application

Order

David Robertson Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title Administration Limited $2,349.43 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application $2,349.43 Total payable by Applicant to Respondent $2,349.43

Reasons

On 9 October 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision dismissing Mr Bentham’s application. As one of the owners of Unit C13 and Auxiliary Units 4,68,184 on Deposited Plan 207812 he had applied for an order setting aside the body corporate’s special resolution not to appoint an auditor for the 2024 financial accounts and an order that the payment of interest to the body corporate manager be disclosed in the body corporate’s records or in the accounts.
I invited written submissions on costs from counsel for the body corporate and reply submissions from Mr Bentham on a time table I set.
Both parties have provided written submissions. The body corporate seeks costs of $2,809.81 being two-thirds of the actual costs incurred. Mr Bentham submits that his liability for costs should be $1,961.00 with deductions for the cost of preparing the invoice for costs and a reduction of time charged for preparing the statement of defence. He also appears to suggest that the $500.00 filing fee he was required to pay should be considered among the deductions. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel. Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...I accept that the relevant invoices refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before the commencement of the claim cannot be recovered, neither can post-hearing attendances, by which time the Tribunal will be functus officio, having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make a costs order. Analysis
Taking account of the guidance in Holden, I find that a 66% contribution is too high in this case, given the factors set out in that decision – the hearing was not long; the issues were not complex; no urgency was required; the issues were not especially important. In a sense, the result was inevitable.
I have decided that a 60% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case.
And I accept Mr Bentham’s point that post hearing costs cannot be claimed. The direction for memoranda addressing costs was made in the decision. By then, to quote Ikeda, the Tribunal was functus officio having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make costs order.
As far as I can tell the post hearing costs claimed for drafting the costs submissions amount to $260.00, not $280.00, as Mr Bentham believes.
So, from the total bill of $4,214.73 (including GST) I have deducted $299.00 for the post-hearing preparation of costs submissions ($260.00 plus GST). That leaves a balance of $3,915.73. 60% of that is $2,349.43.
The $500.00 filing fee Mr Bentham paid is separate from costs claimed by counsel. It is a fee charged to any applicant. If successful, the fee is refunded to the applicant. If unsuccessful it is not (as happened here). The filing fee is not then separately deducted from an application for legal costs. Result
Mr Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title Administration Limited $2,349.43 for costs following his unsuccessful application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9055664. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application	$2,349.43		ApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application

Order

David Robertson Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title Administration Limited $2,349.43 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionApplicantRespondent Costs following unsuccessful application $2,349.43 Total payable by Applicant to Respondent $2,349.43

Reasons

On 9 October 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision dismissing Mr Bentham’s application. As one of the owners of Unit C13 and Auxiliary Units 4,68,184 on Deposited Plan 207812 he had applied for an order setting aside the body corporate’s special resolution not to appoint an auditor for the 2024 financial accounts and an order that the payment of interest to the body corporate manager be disclosed in the body corporate’s records or in the accounts.
I invited written submissions on costs from counsel for the body corporate and reply submissions from Mr Bentham on a time table I set.
Both parties have provided written submissions. The body corporate seeks costs of $2,809.81 being two-thirds of the actual costs incurred. Mr Bentham submits that his liability for costs should be $1,961.00 with deductions for the cost of preparing the invoice for costs and a reduction of time charged for preparing the statement of defence. He also appears to suggest that the $500.00 filing fee he was required to pay should be considered among the deductions. The law on costs
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to award costs where any of the parties was represented by counsel. Costs relate to the proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ is not defined in the RTA but it is in the District Courts Act 2016 as: Any application to the Court for the exercise of the Civil jurisdiction other than an interlocutory application.
The legal principles that apply to an award of costs have been the subject of many decisions from both the District and High Courts. Two useful decisions are the decision of the District Court in BC 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 and of the High Court in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3NZLR 143.
In Ikeda the Court considered that a 66% contribution was fair and reasonable. In Holden the Court said that a mid-range of 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable. In that case the Court set out factors that relate to reasonableness including the length of the hearing; the amount of money involved; the legal and factual complexity; and the time involved for preparation.
In Ikeda Harrison DCJ said: ...I accept that the relevant invoices refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is clear as a matter of law that attendances before the commencement of the claim cannot be recovered, neither can post-hearing attendances, by which time the Tribunal will be functus officio, having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make a costs order. Analysis
Taking account of the guidance in Holden, I find that a 66% contribution is too high in this case, given the factors set out in that decision – the hearing was not long; the issues were not complex; no urgency was required; the issues were not especially important. In a sense, the result was inevitable.
I have decided that a 60% contribution to costs is a fair and reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this case.
And I accept Mr Bentham’s point that post hearing costs cannot be claimed. The direction for memoranda addressing costs was made in the decision. By then, to quote Ikeda, the Tribunal was functus officio having delivered its decision, save for its residual power to make costs order.
As far as I can tell the post hearing costs claimed for drafting the costs submissions amount to $260.00, not $280.00, as Mr Bentham believes.
So, from the total bill of $4,214.73 (including GST) I have deducted $299.00 for the post-hearing preparation of costs submissions ($260.00 plus GST). That leaves a balance of $3,915.73. 60% of that is $2,349.43.
The $500.00 filing fee Mr Bentham paid is separate from costs claimed by counsel. It is a fee charged to any applicant. If successful, the fee is refunded to the applicant. If unsuccessful it is not (as happened here). The filing fee is not then separately deducted from an application for legal costs. Result
Mr Bentham must pay Body Corporate 207812, Strata Title Administration Limited $2,349.43 for costs following his unsuccessful application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9055664 — Unit Titles in Browns Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9055664 — Unit Titles in Browns Bay, 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