Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 9071365 — 14-day notice in Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui
Published 29 May 2026 · Application 9071365
Mixed / unclear
- 14-day notice
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Mount Maunganui
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Tam
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
- Subject to the applicant paying or undertaking to pay reasonable costs for the production of the requested documents, the respondent is to provide: a. invoices from its solicitor Price Baker Berridge to the body corporate, b. invoices from Property 101 Limited to the body corporate, and c. the original engagement contract between the body corporate and Price Baker Berridge, within 14 days of the applicant paying or undertaking to pay reasonable costs for the production of the requested documents.
- The documents listed above may be redacted by the body corporate on grounds of privilege and/or other relevant considerations, where appropriate.
- Leave is given to the applicant to make further submissions on order [1] above by 5pm on 5 June 2026, otherwise order [1] above will be final.
Reasons
- Only counsel for the body corporate and the body corporate manager attended the hearing. The applicant did not appear.
- The applicant had earlier sought leave for the application to be decided on the papers. The applicant filed written submissions ahead of the hearing.
- The body corporate, through counsel, has today filed written submissions about an hour before the hearing. Counsel and the body corporate manager also had opportunity to make oral submissions before me.
- In this proceeding, the applicant, as a unit owner, seeks release of the following records and documents from the body corporate: a. invoices from their solicitor Price Baker Berridge to the body corporate, b. invoices from Property 101 Limited to the body corporate, and c. the original engagement contract between the body corporate and Price Baker Berridge.
- Section 206(1)(g) Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’) obliges the body corporate to make copies, on request of the unit owner, records and documents “available for purchase by the unit owner” if the body corporate “thinks it is reasonable in the circumstances to provide”.
- Section 206(2) UTA provides: The copies must be made available within a reasonable time, and the body corporate may charge any reasonable costs incurred in providing the records and documents.
- It is clear from the words “available for purchase” and “charge reasonable costs” in section 206 that disclosure of the relevant records and documents is subject to a unit owner paying reasonable costs to the body corporate before they are obtained and released.
- The written submissions filed by counsel for the body corporate indicate that they are amenable to providing the requested documents, subject to counsel (and the body corporate) reviewing them and if necessary, redacting them, before releasing copies of the redacted records and documents to the applicant.
- In Young v Body Corporate 85659 [2018] NZHC 150, the High Court scrutinised disclosures of body corporate records and held that the body corporate may redact certain information on grounds of privilege.
- At [13] Churchman J said: While the majority of the redacted portions provide details such as fees paid to lawyers and that responses had been drafted, there are some redacted sections which go into greater detail with regards to preparation for the proceedings and others in which emails from the lawyers had been copied and pasted into the financial statements.
- Because provision of “an unredacted copy of these pages would be revealing the lawyer’s legal advice to the defendant,” the High Court held that these items should remain redacted.
- Following those principles, I order the production of records and documents as requested by the applicant.
- However, the email requests and responses filed by the applicant indicate that the body corporate and their counsel have asked the applicant to confirm that the applicant undertakes to pay for costs to produce documents but there is nothing before me to indicate that the applicant was prepared to pay reasonable costs as stipulated under section 206 UTA.
- I therefore make an order for the disclosure of records and documents subject to the applicant paying or undertaking to pay reasonable costs for the documents.
- I note that body corporate counsel’s submissions annexed Price Baker Berridge’s notional letter of engagement which may suffice for the applicant. If not, the applicant should make another request with counsel, confirming his willingness to pay reasonable costs for their production of the actual, historic letter of engagement.
- I find it reasonable for counsel and other parties, including accountants, to spend time in reviewing and potentially redacting certain information before releasing the requested records and documents to the applicant. Reasonable costs incurred for time reviewing and redacting the information prior to the production of documents must be paid by the applicant.
- I agree with the body corporate’s submission that there may be items which are considered privileged or commercially sensitive or contain personal information relating to other unit owners or which the committee in the circumstances may reasonably considers should not be disclosed to the applicant.
- Because of the applicant’s absence at today’s hearing, I will accord the applicant an opportunity to make further written submissions to me on order [1] above before I render it final.
- Should further submissions be filed by the applicant, I give leave to counsel for the body corporate to file brief responses (within 7 days) after which I will issue a final determination, on the papers.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0800, s206, s206(1), s206(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9071365?
The tribunal order states: Subject to the applicant paying or undertaking to pay reasonable costs for the
How much money was awarded in case 9071365?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 9071365?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9071365?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679862-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.