What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064004?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes the following declarations:

How much money was awarded in case 9064004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064004?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251890-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064004?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes the following declarations:

How much money was awarded in case 9064004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064004?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251890-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 9064004 — Unit Titles

Order

The Tribunal makes the following declarations: a) Section 102 of The Unit Titles Act 2010 allows a unit owner to appoint a proxy to attend a general meeting of the body corporate which includes an AGM and an EGM on their behalf and to be heard and to vote. b) Unit owners are not entitled to appoint a proxy to attend a committee meeting because the Unit Titles Act 2010 does not allow for that. A committee meeting is not a general meeting – section 88 Unit Titles Act 2010. c) Unit owners (natural persons) may not appoint a proxy for election as a committee member – the Unit Titles Act 2010 does not allow for that. d) If a candidate for election as a committee member is not a natural person, the candidate may nominate a director or employee authorised by the directors of the candidate to act as a committee member on the candidate’s behalf – Regulation 24(4) Unit Titles Regulations 2011.

Reasons

On 4 June 2025, I held a telephone directions conference with the parties.
35E Riccarton Limited owns Units E and Z of this unit title development. Also included in the application, but not noted as separate applicants, are the owners of Units F, G and R.
The units in the development are variously owned by individuals, companies, and trusts.

What does the applicant seek?

The unit owners are seeking a declaration as to their rights of representation at AGMs and EGMs and at committee meetings. They want the Tribunal to clarify whether their attorneys acting under valid powers of attorney can attend those meetings as proxies and whether unit owners’ representatives are eligible to stand for election to the body corporate committee.
The parties agreed that the application can be decided on the papers. I set a timetable for submissions. Each party has provided submissions. The applicant’s case
For the applicant it is submitted that: • Even if the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) is silent about whether representatives of unit owners such as holders of powers of attorney can attend committee meetings, logically they should be allowed to because they can attend AGMs and EGMs. • Section 102 UTA grants eligible voters the right to exercise their vote by proxy. A proxy is entitled to attend, and be heard, at a body corporate meeting as if the proxy were the eligible voter. • A power of attorney or power of delegated authority is a broader legal instrument than a proxy. It grants the attorney or delegated representative the power to act in place of the principal. • The body corporate’s allowance of employees or company director’s nominees for non-human entities while rejecting an attorney or delegated representative for a natural person lacks a sound legal or logical basis. • A body corporate committee makes significant decisions equivalent to decision making at AGMs or EGMs. Denying representation for crucial decision making is illogical and prejudicial. • Attorneys and delegated representatives should be treated as the functional equivalent of the unit owner reflecting the significant commitment and legal weight placed upon them by the owners to ensure their interests are continuously and effectively represented in all aspects of body corporate governance, including committee operations and membership. • Denying legitimate representation through attorneys or delegated representatives creates a risk of dysfunctional governance resulting in disputes. The body corporate’s case
The body corporate’s case, simply put, is that the UTA and the Regulations do not provide for the appointment of attorneys or delegated representatives to attend committee meetings on behalf of unit owners. Discussion
The applicant in their reply submissions has sought advice from the Tribunal about other legal mechanisms or instruments that would be appropriate for unit owner representation at committee meetings if attorneys or delegated representatives are not allowed. And they seek clarification about the definition of employee representatives.
The Tribunal is not an advisory body; it is an adjudicative body.
The UTA is a code, specific to unit title governance and the rights and responsibilities of the body corporate (which is the sum total of the unit owners), and the individual unit owners. It is not for the Tribunal to ‘read into’ the Act interpretations that suit either party or to draw comparisons between the UTA and other legislation.
Sections 88(1) and (2) UTA define meetings. All meetings of a body corporate are general meetings. A general meeting is either an annual general meeting (AGM) or extraordinary general meeting (EGM). Section 88(3) is important. It provides: Members of a body corporate may attend and vote at a general meeting (and members of a body corporate committee may attend and vote at a committee meeting) in person or by audio link, audiovisual link, or other remote access facility despite any limitation or condition on the use of an audio link, audiovisual link, or remote access facility that is contained in the body corporate operational rules.
Section 96 UTA deals with voting eligibility. It specifically provides for owner representation at a general meeting of the body corporate (which includes an AGM and an EGM). An eligible voter includes a nominee of a company the name of which is entered on the register of owners of principal units as the representative of the owner.
Section 102 UTA provides that an eligible voter may exercise the right to vote by proxy. A proxy for an eligible voter is entitled to attend and be heard at a body corporate general meeting (which includes an AGM and an EGM) as if the proxy were the eligible voter.
Regulation 24 of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011 provides that a candidate for election as a committee member must be the owner of a principal unit in the unit title development and have no overdue levies.
Regulation 24(4) provides: If a candidate for election as a committee member is not a natural person, the candidate may nominate a director of the candidate, or an employee or class of employee authorised by the directors of the candidate, to act as a committee member on the candidate’s behalf.
The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2022 provides nothing of direct relevance to the issues raised and the declarations sought by the applicant.
On a plain reading of these sections, the declarations sought by the applicant are limited to these: • Unit owners are entitled to appoint a proxy (including a power of attorney or other delegated representative) to attend general meetings of the body corporate which include AGMs and EGMs. The proxy is entitled to be heard and to vote – section 102 UTA. • Unit owners are not entitled to appoint a proxy to attend a committee meeting because the UTA does not allow for that. A committee meeting is not a general meeting – section 88 UTA. Only members of the body corporate (the unit owners) may attend by any of the means set out in section 88(3) UTA. • Unit owners (natural persons) may not appoint a proxy for election as a committee member – the UTA does not allow for that. • If a candidate for election as a committee member is not a natural person, the candidate may nominate a director or employee authorised by the directors of the candidate to act as a committee member on the candidate’s behalf – Regulation 24(4) Unit Titles Regulations 2011.
There is an obvious difference between a natural person and a company; the latter is a legal person but not an actual person. Without that provision in the regulations a company unit owner would have no voting or other rights.
A trustee of a Trust is a natural person. Unlike a company a Trust does not have distinct legal personality; the trustees of the Trust do. Unit ownership would usually reflect that by stating the owner as XX as trustee of the YY Trust, for example.
Unit owners are not prejudiced by any of these provisions because of the flexibility of modes of attendance allowed for meetings. If there is a language barrier, that can be addressed by the presence of an interpreter. But the interpreter cannot be a proxy, or other representative, for committee meetings.
For the Tribunal to make the other declarations sought, allowing proxies or other authorised representatives to attend committee meetings, section 88(2) UTA would need to include 4 additional words - ‘or a committee meeting’. But it does not include those words. There is a distinction between AGMs and EGMs (general meetings) and a committee meeting.
The distinction between employee representatives for non-human entities (companies) and authorised representatives for human owners is not a selective or arbitrary distinction by the body corporate as the applicant submits. It is a statutory provision for a company nominee so the company can have voting rights and a right of attendance at committee meetings.
If, as the applicant submits, there is procedural unfairness, that is a matter for Parliament to address. The relevant provisions of the UTA are clear. The Tribunal cannot circumvent them to provide the applicant with a remedy it considers to be a fair one.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064004 — Unit Titles in Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064004 — Unit Titles in Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the applicant seek?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the applicant seek?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions