Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 9065964 — Unit Titles in Birkenhead, Auckland
Published 20 April 2026 · Application 9065964
Mixed / unclear
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- Body Corporate 212107 is to pay Colin Marshall $39,464.84 for costs.
Reasons
- On the 14 December 2025 I ordered that the Body Corporate pay Mr Marshall $41,379.15 and dismissed the Body Corporate’s counterclaim.
- I allowed the parties time to reach resolution on the issue of costs. They have not been able to reach resolution. They have both filed written submissions on costs and Mr Marshall’s counsel have provided a copy of the invoices and Calderbank letters in support of their claim for costs.
- Mar Marshall seeks: a. Full indemnity Costs of $59,037.63 or failing that 80% of costs $47,230.10. b. Filing fee of $500.00 c. Interest on the judgement sum from September 2022, as per the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
- The Body Corporate accepts that costs follow the event and that as the successful party Mr Marshall is entitled to costs from the Body Corporate, however it disputes the amount that should be awarded.
- The Body Corporate accepts that the filing fee should be awarded.
- The Body Corporate disputes that Mr Marshall is entitled to interest.
- The questions that the Tribunal needs to answer are: a. What is a reasonable contribution that the Body Corporate should pay towards Mr Marshall’s costs? b. Is Mr Marshall entitled to interest? What is a reasonable contribution that the body Corporate should pay towards Mr Marshall’s costs? Legal principles
- Costs are available in this case, by way of exception, under s 102(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the parties were represented by counsel.
- The Tribunal has no costs rules or guideline judgments setting out cost principles. However, it applies civil litigation costs principles.
- As the author of one of the leading textbooks on residential tenancy law, Stewart Benson, has written, “In principle, costs are awarded to the successful party”. 1
- The author of the other leading textbook, David Grinlinton wrote: 2 The general principles that are applied by the courts on the quantum of costs, may also be applied by the Tribunal. What is considered a “reasonable contribution” to a successful party's costs will depend on many factors, but there is authority that a figure of 60 per cent is regarded as the average, with most awards falling within the range of 40 - 70 per cent of actual costs.
- The District Court has upheld that approach. 3
- Generally, costs should be ordered where “the parties are represented by counsel, the dispute is complex, and the amount of the claim is substantial: Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759”. 4 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters New Zealand Limited 2018) at p 284. 2 David Grinlinton Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice (4 th ed, Lexis Nexis, Wellington, 2012) at
- 3.5. 3 See for example, French v Ryan DC Auckland CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012. Judge Taumaunu increased the Tribunal’s costs award applying the conventional civil litigation principles.
- What will amount to a reasonable contribution to costs will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd, Justice McGechan, in his reserved costs decision, held that: 5 ...the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution’. It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise...if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%, there is a feeling of some comfort...
- His Honour confirmed that when a party is represented by counsel, that the following factors, inter alia, may be relevant when assessing costs: 6 (a)The length of the hearing. (b)The sum of money involved. (c)The legal and factual complexity. (d)Whether argument lacking substance was advanced, and (e)The degree of success achieved by the parties.
- Similarly, in David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms and Engineering Ltd (No 2) [1988]1 PRNZ 162, Tompkins J considered a costs issue where the party was represented, and held: In addition to the length of the hearing, matters such as the amount of money involved, the importance either to the parties or generally of the issues, monetary or non-monetary, the legal and factual complexities, the amount of time required for effective preparation, the number and complexity of interlocutory applications and the likely or actual solicitor and client costs incurred, may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
- In Ikeda, 7 Judge Harrison approved Judge Taumaunu’s approach in French v Ryan 8 to consider the actual costs incurred and the District Court scale: 9 4 Civil Procedure: District Courts and Tribunals Westlaw online service at TE3.05. 5 [1997] 3 NZLR 143 at p 147 ffg. 6 These are only some of the of factors that may be relevant. 7 Body Corporate 346799 v Ikeda [2020] NZDC 3669 [5 March 2020] It is also appropriate for guidance purposes to consider what the award of costs may have been under the appropriate category and band pursuant to the District Court Rules 2009.
- In Wing On So, Judge DJ Clark discussed the approach to be taken when indemnity costs are sought other than as of right: 10 [109] ...the approach should be an objective assessment of what steps had to be undertaken for the successful party to achieve the result they have, and in doing so applying the factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, using the scale cost regime as a guideline.
- His Honour also observed in a footnote that, “The well-known principles for increased and/or indemnity cost could also be applied in these circumstances.” The parties’ submissions on the amount of costs that should be awarded.
- Mr Marshall seeks full indemnity costs or failing that submits that a 80% contribution is reasonable.
- Counsel for Mr Marshall submits that a substantial award or full indemnity should be awarded for the following reasons: a. The applicant tried to resolve the matter from July 2022 without the necessity of legal proceedings but that the Body Corporate would not consider that applicant’s claim and took a “sue me’ attitude towards the applicant which meant that the applicant was forced to engage lawyers and take proceedings. b. That the Body Corporate’s position was staunch and unyielding throughout the proceedings. It raised multiple arguments, all of which were without merit and failed at hearing. c. That the Body Corporate should have realised and accepted the merit of the applicant’s claim early on, but failed to do so, even though the Body Corporate chairperson accepted at hearing that Body Corporate did not follow the correct procedure and did not have sufficient grounds for many for the conclusions it had previously reached. 8 See n 3. 9 Note 7, at [15]. 10 Wing On So v Body Corporate 349200 [2024] NZDC 9439 at [109]. d. That the Body Corporate had not accepted Calderbank letters that correctly set out the legal position in relation to s138 and were for similar to or less than the amount awarded. e. That the hearing time was for two full days over 3 days. In addition to that there was a case conference in August 2025, after which the applicant unsuccessfully tried to settle matters with the Body Corporate to avoid further costs being incurred.
- The Body Corporate submits that a lower award of costs (40%) should be made because: a. The hearing time was relatively short and only involved 3 witnesses. b. The sum awarded was less than 50% of the jurisdictional limit. c. That scale costs would have been $23,970.00 d. It was not necessary for Mr Marshall to engage the services of senior and junior counsel and therefore it would be unreasonable to award costs for two lawyers in this matter. e. That the only Calderbank letter that was offered that was less than the sum awarded was sent on the 22 October and that the Body Corporate was given only 5 working days to respond to that letter. f. That Mr Marshall’s lawyers have only provided invoices not timesheets and that this makes it impossible to consider whether time spent on tasks was reasonable for the work undertaken.
- Having considered the above submissions and applying the legal principles I consider an award of 66% reasonable in the circumstances, I say this taking into particular account the following: a. This application is not one to which a party is entitled to full indemnity costs. b. Mr Marshall was wholly successful in his claim for reimbursement of the amounts paid for repair, but was not meritorious in his claim for consequential losses nor was he successful in his attempt to have Mr Newton pay for some of the costs. Had Mr Marshall only advanced claims for the money he paid out in repairs that should have been paid by the Body Corporate and not the additional claims I would have been minded to make a costs order close to 80% in this instance. c. The Body Corporate was wholly unsuccessful in its counterclaim. d. That the Mr Marshall’s claim for the amounts paid by him that should have been paid by the Body Corporate was clearly meritorious, and the Body Corporate should have realised that early on. The Body Corporate chairperson recognised at hearing that in the first instance the amounts paid by Mr Marshall should have been paid for by the Body Corporate. Given this admission it is difficult to understand why the Body Corporate took the rigid stance that they did. I accept that the Body Corporate rigid and misguided position meant that Mr Marshall was forced to take proceedings to recover these funds. The application of s138 and s126 UTA has been the subject of many proceedings in the higher Courts and the law is consistent and settled. The Body Corporate advanced numerous arguments that lacked substance and it was these arguments that took most of the time at hearing and required significant preparation by Mr Marshall’s lawyers. e. The legal claims were not in of themselves complex, but the Body Corporate raised many defences from many angles. The factual situation was somewhat complex. f. Whilst Mr Marshall’s claim was 50% of the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit it represented a significant amount of money to Mr Marshall. Mr Marshall was also defending the Body Corporate’s claim of $62,433.70, and Mr Wood, counsel for the Body Corporate submitted to the Tribunal at the hearing on the 11 November 2025 that the combination of both the applicant’s and respondents claim exceeded the jurisdictional limit. Mr Wood’s costs submission downplays the sum of money involved and is at odds with his position of the 11 November 2025. g. Mr Marshall’s lawyers sent 4 Calderbank letters to the Body Corporate. The first two dated December 2024 and March 2024 were above the amount that was awarded. The third, which was sent shortly after the first case conference, is slightly higher than the amount awarded by the Tribunal but is not higher than the awarded amount and the filing fee. The purpose of the Calderbank letter In August was to prevent further costs being incurred, by preparing and attending hearing. I note that a significant portion of Mr Marshall’s costs were incurred after that date. h. I consider that all the costs incurred by Mr Marshall after the final Calderbank letter which was substantially below the amount awarded should be borne by the Body Corporate, this is because it should have ben obvious to the Body Corporate at that time (as was admitted by the Body Corporate chairperson at the hearing) that a good proportion of Mr Marshall’s claim had merit. i. I consider that the degree of success, that the Body Corporate should have known that the argument to Mr Marshall’s claim lacked merit, that its own claim was unmeritorious, and the Calderbank letters all have the effect of justifying an award above scale costs.
Should interest be awarded?
- Mr Marshall seeks interest on the amount awarded from September 2022 pursuant to s9 and 10 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. Counsel submits that interest can be awarded pursuant to the of s107 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
- Section 6(1)(a) of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 specifically excludes Tribunal orders under that Act and therefore there is no basis for an award of interest.
- Further s107 RTA relates to enforcement only not to an award of interest. Conclusion.
- I am satisfied that a reasonable contribution of the Body Corporate to Mr Marshall’s costs is 66% of the total and therefore I award $38,964.84 to be paid together with the filing fee of $500 making a total costs award of $39,464.84.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0800, s102(2), s107, s126, s138, s2009, s50, s6(1), s66, s8, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9065964?
The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 212107 is to pay Colin Marshall $39,464.84 for costs.
How much money was awarded in case 9065964?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065964?
The primary dispute was Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065964?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13430364-Tribunal_Order.pdf.