Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9059984 — Unit Titles in Grenada North, Wellington
Decided 14 Apr 2025 · Published 14 Apr 2025 · Application 9059984
Dismissed
- Unit Titles
Order
- McMorran Properties Limited must pay Bryan Leslie Pool $5,422.83 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Previous order application 9055324 dated 26/11/2024 $4,922.83 Filing Fee $500.00 Total award $5,422.83 Total payable by Applicant to Respondent $5,422.83
- The application by McMorran Properties Limited is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing I held by phone on 26 March 2025. Mr McMorran represented McMorran Properties Limited (MPL). I adjourned the hearing with directions for the applicant to provide further material. The hearing concluded on 31 March 2025. Previous orders
- On 26 November 2024, the Tribunal issued its order on Mr Pool’s application to have MPL pay the balance of recladding costs. With reference to the relevant provisions of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) the Tribunal set out its reasons in full.
- Matters became confused since it seemed there was no valid cross application by MPL. The Tribunal then issued an amended order, but then recalled it following confirmation by the registry that MPL had a validly lodged cross application.
- Once I was made aware of that I recalled the later order dated 29 November and reinstated the order dated 26 November 2024.
- Mr Pool’s application was successful. The only outstanding issue on his application was his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. I have awarded him the fee in this order, his application being successful.
- I adjourned MPL’s application to ensure it had the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions in full. It was that application I heard most recently. MPL’s application
- MPL has claimed for the cost of repairing damage it says was caused to its electrical system and fittings by the contracting firm that completed the recladding work to the units, and other associated losses.
- Since the application was lodged the claim has been amended. Originally MPL sought $3,142.80; now it seeks repair and other costs of $2,840.34 in total. Of that $1,695.50 is sought for Mr McMorran’s time dealing with the issue and $100.00 for spoiled refrigerator contents. So, the nub of the dispute (the actual repair costs) appears to be just $1,044.84.
- Given the time, effort, and cost incurred by the parties to date, I suggested that they consider a settlement on a 50:50 basis. They would not agree to that. Rather, what the Tribunal heard was an entrenched dispute, and parties who fundamentally do not get along and who probably never will.
- That was the Tribunal’s earlier observation as well. In its decision dated 26 November 2024 the Tribunal said: This case illustrates what can happen with a small body corporate where one person owns a majority of the units, the other owner is a minority, and decisions are made informally and in good faith. Bodies corporate such as this one benefit from having a professional manager. The parties should consider that. Can MPL’s claim succeed?
- The answer to this question is no. Why? Because as the Tribunal said in its order dated 26 November 2024: If the damage is just to MPL’s unit the dispute will be between MPL and whoever it believes caused the damage...That the Body Corporate (Mr Pool on its behalf) paid Kiwispan’s invoice in full should not preclude MPL as an individual unit owner suing for its losses, but it cannot recover those losses from Mr Pool when he did not cause the damage.
- MPL has made its claim against Mr Pool. He did not cause any damage to MPL’s unit, nor did the body corporate. That addresses MPL’s claim in full; it cannot succeed.
- The Tribunal is not an advisory body. MPL can take advice should it wish to pursue its claim for damage to its unit. Its claim will be against whomever caused the damage. That in turn will decide the forum where the dispute will be adjudicated if there is no agreement to settle. Result
- For the reasons given MPL’s application is dismissed. MPL cannot be awarded the filing fee as the application is unsuccessful.