What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9056804?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9056804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056804?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11551186-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9056804?

The tribunal order states: ON COSTS

How much money was awarded in case 9056804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9056804?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9056804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11551186-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Devonport, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9056804 — Unit Titles

Order

ON COSTS

Baywater Properties (2011) Ltd and Raos Glass Ltd must pay costs of $2,532.71 to Body Corporate 174285 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 December 2024.
The respondent Body Corporate 174285 was represented by counsel. The applicant (Baywater Properties (2011) Ltd and Raos Glass Ltd) are represented by directors Michael Single and Peter Raos as owners of principal units D and E.
At the substantive hearing, I ruled in favour of the body corporate and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
On dismissal of the application for reasons set out in my order of 20 December 2024, I reserved the issue of costs for the proceedings and invited both parties to file written submissions, which have been duly filed.
The respondent’s counsel filed submissions seeking costs; the applicant opposes the respondent’s claim for an order for costs.
I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers, as follows.
I acknowledge the applicant’s submission that costs should lie where they fall because they are not the “wrong-doer” in that they did not break any laws. I also note the applicant’s continued position that “the only party that didn’t follow the correct procedure for reassessment under Unit Titles Act 2010 was the Body Corporate Committee”.
However, the general principle is costs follow the event.
It is incumbent on the party bringing proceedings in an adversarial forum, which includes the tenancy tribunal, to be able to prove its case brought before the court or adjudication forum.
Here the dismissal of the applicant’s claim in its entirety meant that the body corporate has been successful in their defence of the claim. Because the body corporate has incurred legal costs, the body corporate is entitled to an order for the applicant to pay costs.
Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel.
The issue is what are ‘reasonable costs’ in the circumstances.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, there is no schedule as to costs and so the Tribunal traditionally relies on common law case authorities that outline the principles as to awards of costs.
Prior to the introduction of schedules the District Court and High Court the courts awarded a reasonable contribution to costs based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties – see Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149.
In Holden the court stated “...a court [or Tribunal] should not forget the ultimate question or overlook the principles which underlie. There is wood as well as the trees. The ultimate question always remains: What is a reasonable contribution in these particular circumstances?”
The leading text by Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5 states: The Tribunal may also order a party to pay the reasonable costs of any other party to the proceedings ... The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal referring to the factors set out in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 148 – 149. What is considered “reasonable contribution” to a successful party’s costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 percent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40-70 per cent of actual costs (Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd at 149-150).
In this case, counsel for the body corporate says that the legal costs which the body corporate has incurred relating to dealing with the applicant’s unhappiness about the allocation of levies has reached a total of $7,322.99 which its counsel seeks a sum of $3,748.69 which represents 51% of actual costs incurred.
However, section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can only order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the successful party on matters in connection with the proceedings, rather than all of the costs incurred by the body corporate ‘in dealing with the applicant’s unhappiness’ which includes advice in relation to levies and reassessing ownership and utility interests, advice on the applicant’s proposed resolution wanting reallocation of costs and providing advice on the applicant’s again raising issues about past levies.
I consider these invoices incurred by the body corporate totalling $4,221.19 to be in connection with the proceedings: a. Legal costs of INV-027853 - $3,175 + GST and disbursements – in relation to receiving the claim, corresponding with the owners and defending the claim at a hearing. b. Legal cost of INV – 027902 - $472.50 + GST totalling $543.38 – 16 January 2025 - relating to costs submissions
Following Holden, I consider an award of costs of $2,532.71 (being 60% of $4,221.19) appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Even with 60% of legal costs awarded in favour of the body corporate, they still carry the remaining 40% costs which were necessitated by the applicant bringing the proceedings in the first place.
I therefore make an order for the applicant to pay costs of $2,532.71 to the respondent.

Order

ON COSTS

Baywater Properties (2011) Ltd and Raos Glass Ltd must pay costs of $2,532.71 to Body Corporate 174285 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 December 2024.
The respondent Body Corporate 174285 was represented by counsel. The applicant (Baywater Properties (2011) Ltd and Raos Glass Ltd) are represented by directors Michael Single and Peter Raos as owners of principal units D and E.
At the substantive hearing, I ruled in favour of the body corporate and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
On dismissal of the application for reasons set out in my order of 20 December 2024, I reserved the issue of costs for the proceedings and invited both parties to file written submissions, which have been duly filed.
The respondent’s counsel filed submissions seeking costs; the applicant opposes the respondent’s claim for an order for costs.
I now issue my decision on costs, on the papers, as follows.
I acknowledge the applicant’s submission that costs should lie where they fall because they are not the “wrong-doer” in that they did not break any laws. I also note the applicant’s continued position that “the only party that didn’t follow the correct procedure for reassessment under Unit Titles Act 2010 was the Body Corporate Committee”.
However, the general principle is costs follow the event.
It is incumbent on the party bringing proceedings in an adversarial forum, which includes the tenancy tribunal, to be able to prove its case brought before the court or adjudication forum.
Here the dismissal of the applicant’s claim in its entirety meant that the body corporate has been successful in their defence of the claim. Because the body corporate has incurred legal costs, the body corporate is entitled to an order for the applicant to pay costs.
Sections 102(2) and 102(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal can order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the other party in connection with the proceedings where parties are represented by counsel.
The issue is what are ‘reasonable costs’ in the circumstances.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, there is no schedule as to costs and so the Tribunal traditionally relies on common law case authorities that outline the principles as to awards of costs.
Prior to the introduction of schedules the District Court and High Court the courts awarded a reasonable contribution to costs based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties – see Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149.
In Holden the court stated “...a court [or Tribunal] should not forget the ultimate question or overlook the principles which underlie. There is wood as well as the trees. The ultimate question always remains: What is a reasonable contribution in these particular circumstances?”
The leading text by Grinlinton Residential Tenancies (4 th edition, 2012) at para 8.3.5 states: The Tribunal may also order a party to pay the reasonable costs of any other party to the proceedings ... The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal referring to the factors set out in Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at 148 – 149. What is considered “reasonable contribution” to a successful party’s costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 percent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40-70 per cent of actual costs (Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd at 149-150).
In this case, counsel for the body corporate says that the legal costs which the body corporate has incurred relating to dealing with the applicant’s unhappiness about the allocation of levies has reached a total of $7,322.99 which its counsel seeks a sum of $3,748.69 which represents 51% of actual costs incurred.
However, section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can only order the unsuccessful party to pay reasonable costs to the successful party on matters in connection with the proceedings, rather than all of the costs incurred by the body corporate ‘in dealing with the applicant’s unhappiness’ which includes advice in relation to levies and reassessing ownership and utility interests, advice on the applicant’s proposed resolution wanting reallocation of costs and providing advice on the applicant’s again raising issues about past levies.
I consider these invoices incurred by the body corporate totalling $4,221.19 to be in connection with the proceedings: a. Legal costs of INV-027853 - $3,175 + GST and disbursements – in relation to receiving the claim, corresponding with the owners and defending the claim at a hearing. b. Legal cost of INV – 027902 - $472.50 + GST totalling $543.38 – 16 January 2025 - relating to costs submissions
Following Holden, I consider an award of costs of $2,532.71 (being 60% of $4,221.19) appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Even with 60% of legal costs awarded in favour of the body corporate, they still carry the remaining 40% costs which were necessitated by the applicant bringing the proceedings in the first place.
I therefore make an order for the applicant to pay costs of $2,532.71 to the respondent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056804 — Unit Titles in Devonport, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9056804 — Unit Titles in Devonport, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ON COSTS

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions