How much money was awarded in case 9066484?

The reconciled net award was $13,156.82.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9066484?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9066484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397107-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9066484?

The reconciled net award was $13,156.82.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9066484?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9066484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397107-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Papatoetoe, Manukau Tenancy Tribunal Case 9066484 — Unit Titles

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9066484?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Cullen Rivers, Albert Watchman Gary Rivers must pay Body Corporate

Order

Daniel Cullen Rivers, Albert Watchman Gary Rivers must pay Body Corporate 174369 $24,545.64 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Ordinary Levy: Levy period 01-06-22 to 31-05-25 Costs: debt collection incurred by body corporate managers Costs: legal fees Costs: appearance at hearing by counsel and representative of law firm (2 hours in total) Tribunal filing fee Interest: to 8 July 2025 Total award $14,059.32 $902.50 $6,792.35 $644.00 $500.00 $1,647.47 $24,545.64

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings conducted remotely on 8 July and 27 August 2025.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest. The body corporate has also fixed the due date for the levies to be paid but the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
Issue arises in this case as to whether the meetings have been properly convened and held by the body corporate which led to decisions on levies being properly struck against the unit owner. The owners of unit 4 say they have not been notified and given the opportunity to attend some of the annual general meetings.
The unit owner was given notice of the 2023 Annual General Meeting.
Counsel for the body corporate concedes that the unit owner may not have been notified of the 2024 AGM; the body corporate has not been able to locate an email to the respondent inviting them to the meeting.
Notwithstanding the lack of notification and procedural irregularity in respect of the 2024 annual general meeting, I find that the respondent is still liable to pay the levies struck by the body corporate.
While regulation 5 of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011 impose a mandatory obligation on the body corporate to notify all unit owners of annual general meetings, the lack of compliance with that mandatory statutory process did not mean that the subsequent steps in that process, ie., the striking of the levies, have no effect.
I adopt the judgment of Justice Asher in Sestan v Auckland District Health Board CIV-2006-404-006868, November 16, 2006 that the court’s response must be proportionate, balancing the nature of the right and the severity of the breach. Further, the Courts must be wary of inflexible and rigid responses and the need to maintain a credible and effective system of justice.
Against those principles, I note that the 2024 Annual General Meeting had been properly convened and quorate, with five (5) owners in attendance. The proposed levies for the 2024–2025 financial year were unanimously approved with no objections recorded.
If the respondent had received notice, attended the 2024 AGM, and voted against the proposed levies pursuant to section 84(1) of the UTA, the levies would have still been resolved. The respondent would have been outvoted five to one. The unit owner’s non-attendance therefore had no material effect on the outcome.
Following Sestan, where the breach of the mandatory requirement in section 9(2)(d) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 did not render the plaintiff’s subsequent detention invalid, the unit owner’s failure to receive notice of the 2024 AGM does not invalidate the subsequent levies struck at the 2024 AGM nor render them invalid.
I accept counsel’s submission that such an outcome would be disproportionate and would be tone deaf to the purpose of the Unit Titles Act 2010 set out in sections 3(c) and (d) to establish a flexible and responsive regime for the governance of unit title developments and to protect the integrity of the development as a whole.
In any event, and out of an abundance of caution, an Extraordinary General Meeting (the 2025 EGM) was convened and held on 31 July 2025 whereby the 2024–2025 budget and levies were re-ratified and thus reaffirming the levies struck in the 2024 AGM.
The High Court in Body Corporate 192964 and Lin v Auckland City Council and Jones CIV 2004-404-7207, 23 May 2005, traversed the legal principles of ratification and held that ratification has a retroactive effect in that it invests the person on whose behalf the act ratified was done, the person who did the act, and third parties, with the same rights, duties, immunities and liabilities in all respects as if the act had been done with the previous authority of the person on whose behalf it was done.
For those reasons, I find that despite the owner of unit 4 not properly notified of the 2024 AGM, the respondent is still liable to pay the levies struck by the body corporate at the 2024 AGM which in any event had been duly ratified at the 31 July 2025 EGM.
The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies.
The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to 8 July 2025.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable which includes time in attendance at the two hearings as set out in the table above.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings conducted remotely on 8 July and 27 August 2025.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest. The body corporate has also fixed the due date for the levies to be paid but the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
Issue arises in this case as to whether the meetings have been properly convened and held by the body corporate which led to decisions on levies being properly struck against the unit owner. The owners of unit 4 say they have not been notified and given the opportunity to attend some of the annual general meetings.
The unit owner was given notice of the 2023 Annual General Meeting.
Counsel for the body corporate concedes that the unit owner may not have been notified of the 2024 AGM; the body corporate has not been able to locate an email to the respondent inviting them to the meeting.
Notwithstanding the lack of notification and procedural irregularity in respect of the 2024 annual general meeting, I find that the respondent is still liable to pay the levies struck by the body corporate.
While regulation 5 of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011 impose a mandatory obligation on the body corporate to notify all unit owners of annual general meetings, the lack of compliance with that mandatory statutory process did not mean that the subsequent steps in that process, ie., the striking of the levies, have no effect.
I adopt the judgment of Justice Asher in Sestan v Auckland District Health Board CIV-2006-404-006868, November 16, 2006 that the court’s response must be proportionate, balancing the nature of the right and the severity of the breach. Further, the Courts must be wary of inflexible and rigid responses and the need to maintain a credible and effective system of justice.
Against those principles, I note that the 2024 Annual General Meeting had been properly convened and quorate, with five (5) owners in attendance. The proposed levies for the 2024–2025 financial year were unanimously approved with no objections recorded.
If the respondent had received notice, attended the 2024 AGM, and voted against the proposed levies pursuant to section 84(1) of the UTA, the levies would have still been resolved. The respondent would have been outvoted five to one. The unit owner’s non-attendance therefore had no material effect on the outcome.
Following Sestan, where the breach of the mandatory requirement in section 9(2)(d) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 did not render the plaintiff’s subsequent detention invalid, the unit owner’s failure to receive notice of the 2024 AGM does not invalidate the subsequent levies struck at the 2024 AGM nor render them invalid.
I accept counsel’s submission that such an outcome would be disproportionate and would be tone deaf to the purpose of the Unit Titles Act 2010 set out in sections 3(c) and (d) to establish a flexible and responsive regime for the governance of unit title developments and to protect the integrity of the development as a whole.
In any event, and out of an abundance of caution, an Extraordinary General Meeting (the 2025 EGM) was convened and held on 31 July 2025 whereby the 2024–2025 budget and levies were re-ratified and thus reaffirming the levies struck in the 2024 AGM.
The High Court in Body Corporate 192964 and Lin v Auckland City Council and Jones CIV 2004-404-7207, 23 May 2005, traversed the legal principles of ratification and held that ratification has a retroactive effect in that it invests the person on whose behalf the act ratified was done, the person who did the act, and third parties, with the same rights, duties, immunities and liabilities in all respects as if the act had been done with the previous authority of the person on whose behalf it was done.
For those reasons, I find that despite the owner of unit 4 not properly notified of the 2024 AGM, the respondent is still liable to pay the levies struck by the body corporate at the 2024 AGM which in any event had been duly ratified at the 31 July 2025 EGM.
The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies.
The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to 8 July 2025.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable which includes time in attendance at the two hearings as set out in the table above.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9066484 — Unit Titles in Papatoetoe, Manukau

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9066484 — Unit Titles in Papatoetoe, Manukau

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions