What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9060764?

The tribunal order states: Linda Wu and Hailing Wang must pay Body Corporate 406198 $19,997.30

How much money was awarded in case 9060764?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9060764?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9060764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685297-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9060764?

The tribunal order states: Linda Wu and Hailing Wang must pay Body Corporate 406198 $19,997.30

How much money was awarded in case 9060764?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9060764?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9060764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685297-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9060764 — Unit Titles

Order

Linda Wu and Hailing Wang must pay Body Corporate 406198 $19,997.30 immediately, being costs following the Tribunal’s order made on 3 December 2024.
The respondents’ application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 3 December 2024 following the hearing of the parties’ applications on 27 November 2024.
The Tribunal’s order made on 3 December awarded costs to the Body Corporate (BC) because it was successful in its application.
The BC has filed submissions on costs and the respondents have filed submissions in response. The respondents’ submissions do not deal in any way with the BC’s costs submissions. They are concerned with the BC’s substantive application. The respondents have also claimed costs. The usual rule is that costs follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. There is no reason to depart from that rule in this case and because the respondents are the unsuccessful party, their application for costs is dismissed.
Under s127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (the Act), where a unit owner has rendered necessary any act by the BC due to the unit owner’s breach of the Act, the BC is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in doing the act. In this case, the Tribunal has decided that the respondents breached the Act by erecting a partition wall in the unit. That necessitated the BC taking action to remedy the breach including bringing this application.
In terms of legal costs, the BC is entitled to recover its reasonable indemnity costs.
The BC’s lawyers, Price Baker Berridge (PBB), have provided their time records. At the hourly rates of the fee earners concerned the time recorded produces total fees of $14,251. The only thing that I find unreasonable about that is the time claimed for second counsel at the hearing. I do not suggest that Ms Dobson did not contribute to the hearing, but given Mr Baker’s significant involvement with the file, it should not have been necessary for her to attend, and it is not reasonable for the respondents to pay for her attendance.
The deduction is $375 which reduces the fees to $13,876. The BC has claimed, in addition, the cost of attending the hearing. But that is included in the time records and so no additional award is required.
Because the BC has succeeded with its application, it is entitled to recover the $500 filing fee.
Regarding other disbursements, the BC withdrew its claim for $253 relating to GoFox’s invoice.
The only other disbursement shown on PBB’s invoice that I have awarded is the $12 Landonline search fee. The other costs on the invoice are overheads, and I do not accept that it is reasonable to expect the respondents to pay them.
I have awarded the other disbursements claimed. I had some doubts about the Lane Neave invoice given that PBB dealt with the application from start to finish. But I accept that the BC required advice early in the piece and therefore the cost is reasonable. I was also unsure about the first OnFire invoice because it predated PBB’s involvement. But I accept that it was necessary and reasonable for the BC to investigate the effect of the partition wall on the building’s fire safety. That makes it recoverable under a127 of the Act.
The BC is registered for GST and so it can recover the GST on the fees and disbursements as input tax. I have therefore not awarded the GST element of them.
The following is a breakdown of the costs awarded. PBB Fees $13,876.00 Filing fee $500.00 Landonline search fee $12.00 Lane Neave Invoice $576.80 Onfire Invoice 9226 $1,500 Onfire Invoice 9458 $3,532.50 Total $19,997.30

Order

Linda Wu and Hailing Wang must pay Body Corporate 406198 $19,997.30 immediately, being costs following the Tribunal’s order made on 3 December 2024.
The respondents’ application for costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 3 December 2024 following the hearing of the parties’ applications on 27 November 2024.
The Tribunal’s order made on 3 December awarded costs to the Body Corporate (BC) because it was successful in its application.
The BC has filed submissions on costs and the respondents have filed submissions in response. The respondents’ submissions do not deal in any way with the BC’s costs submissions. They are concerned with the BC’s substantive application. The respondents have also claimed costs. The usual rule is that costs follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. There is no reason to depart from that rule in this case and because the respondents are the unsuccessful party, their application for costs is dismissed.
Under s127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (the Act), where a unit owner has rendered necessary any act by the BC due to the unit owner’s breach of the Act, the BC is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in doing the act. In this case, the Tribunal has decided that the respondents breached the Act by erecting a partition wall in the unit. That necessitated the BC taking action to remedy the breach including bringing this application.
In terms of legal costs, the BC is entitled to recover its reasonable indemnity costs.
The BC’s lawyers, Price Baker Berridge (PBB), have provided their time records. At the hourly rates of the fee earners concerned the time recorded produces total fees of $14,251. The only thing that I find unreasonable about that is the time claimed for second counsel at the hearing. I do not suggest that Ms Dobson did not contribute to the hearing, but given Mr Baker’s significant involvement with the file, it should not have been necessary for her to attend, and it is not reasonable for the respondents to pay for her attendance.
The deduction is $375 which reduces the fees to $13,876. The BC has claimed, in addition, the cost of attending the hearing. But that is included in the time records and so no additional award is required.
Because the BC has succeeded with its application, it is entitled to recover the $500 filing fee.
Regarding other disbursements, the BC withdrew its claim for $253 relating to GoFox’s invoice.
The only other disbursement shown on PBB’s invoice that I have awarded is the $12 Landonline search fee. The other costs on the invoice are overheads, and I do not accept that it is reasonable to expect the respondents to pay them.
I have awarded the other disbursements claimed. I had some doubts about the Lane Neave invoice given that PBB dealt with the application from start to finish. But I accept that the BC required advice early in the piece and therefore the cost is reasonable. I was also unsure about the first OnFire invoice because it predated PBB’s involvement. But I accept that it was necessary and reasonable for the BC to investigate the effect of the partition wall on the building’s fire safety. That makes it recoverable under a127 of the Act.
The BC is registered for GST and so it can recover the GST on the fees and disbursements as input tax. I have therefore not awarded the GST element of them.
The following is a breakdown of the costs awarded. PBB Fees $13,876.00 Filing fee $500.00 Landonline search fee $12.00 Lane Neave Invoice $576.80 Onfire Invoice 9226 $1,500 Onfire Invoice 9458 $3,532.50 Total $19,997.30

Tenancy Tribunal case 9060764 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9060764 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions