What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9067764?

The tribunal order states: Taishici Liang must pay Body Corporate 558356 $14,870.23 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9067764?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9067764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9067764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13107081-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9067764?

The tribunal order states: Taishici Liang must pay Body Corporate 558356 $14,870.23 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9067764?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9067764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9067764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13107081-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Glenfield, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9067764 — Tenancy dispute

Order

amends and replaces the Tribunal’s order of 18 August 2025.

ORDER

Taishici Liang must pay Body Corporate 558356 $14,870.23 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Filing Fee$500.00 Ordinary Levy: Due 1 October 2024$7,861.33 Costs: BC Costs$920.00 Costs: Legal fees$4,895.38 Interest$0.00 Total award$14,176.71 Total interest$693.52 Total award with interest$14,870.23 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $14,870.23

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 7 August 2025.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies due 1 October 2024, 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 fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010. 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 the hearing date.

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.
Mr Liang made various submissions in relation to the costs. I summarise his reasons that he should not pay the Body Corporate fees of $920.00 and the legal fees of $4262.88 plus the costs of the hearing. a. The costs are too high and out of proportion to the amounts being claimed. b. No explanation has been given as to how the costs have been made up. c. That the Body Corporate has failed to take reasonable recovery steps including calling Mr Liang before engaging in the costly legal measures. d. That Mr Liang did not receive the invoice for payment from the Body Corporate at the correct email addresses. e. Mr Liang cannot afford to make payment of the full amount.
I have considered the submissions made by Mr Liang and those made by the Applicant and I am satisfied that Mr Liang is liable for payment of the Body Corporate charges and the legal costs for the following reasons: a. The Courts have held that it is the defaulting party’s obligation to ensure that they meet the costs of collecting the debt. That is the purpose of section 124 UTA. If the unit owner did not pay the costs of the collecting the debt, then the other unit owners would have to pay, and this would be unfair on them. The regime is so that if any owner defaults on the levies owed to the Body Corporate, then the owner is responsible for any costs of collection. b. The Body Corporate and legal fees charged are reasonable for the work that was done. I have reviewed the time sheets provided by Price Baker Berridge and the work that has been done is usual and reasonable for this type of application. c. That the Body Corporate fees and the instruction of counsel are in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Body Corporate minutes of AGM held on the 19 August 2024. d. That the levies were sent to the email address provided by Mr Liang to the Body Corporate and were obviously received by him because in December 2024 he responded by email. e. It was Mr Liang’s responsibility to ensure that the levies were paid on time, and that especially after December 2024, when Mr Liang made contact with the Body Corporate, he was aware that levies were owed, and if not paid then the matter would proceed to a tribunal application. f. The Body Corporate did take steps to avoid litigation, such as writing to Mr Liang. g. The ability of a party to pay a levy does not change the party’s liability to pay a levy.
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.

Why has this order been amended?

After issuing the order it has been brought to the Tribunal’s attention that there was a typographical error in the description of the Body Corporate- the correct Body Corporate number is 558356 not 558656 as it was recorded on the previous order dated 18 August 2025.
The order is amended to reflect the correct number of the Body Corporate 558356 to allow enforcement of the order.
In all other respects the order remains the same.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9067764 — Tenancy dispute in Glenfield, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9067764 — Tenancy dispute in Glenfield, Auckland

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Why has this order been amended?

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Why has this order been amended?