Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9071824 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 24 February 2026 · Published 24 February 2026 · Application 9071824
Mixed / unclear
- Unit Titles
Order
- Leave is granted to amend the names of the applicants as set out in [2] through [4] of the Memorandum for the Applicants dated 29 January 2026 to include Robert Seymour Cox of Unit 1201 and Benjamin, Christine, Joanna and Sophia Ling of Unit 804.
- Body Corporate 569496 is to return to all 26 applicants the levies raised pursuant to the resolution of 13 June 2025 by payment of $40,392.95 to the trust account of their solicitors Pidgeon Judd within 7 days of this decision, in accordance with the breakdown set out on the table under [5] of the Memorandum for the Applicants dated 29 January 2026.
- Body Corporate 569496 is to pay the applicants’ legal costs of $11,888.72 within 7 days of this decision.
- Body Corporate 569496 is to pay the Tribunal filing fee of $500.00 to the applicants within 7 days of this decision.
Reasons
- Counsel for the applicants, Tom Ashley, attended the hearing on 11 November 2025 and 27 January 2026. There was no appearance by the body corporate.
- The 26 applicants in the proceedings are unit owners of the unit title development, referring themselves as The Cab Owners Group.
- Acting under powers of delegation by the body corporate, the body corporate committee resolved on 13 June 2025 to raise a special levy for $150,000 which is subsequently revealed to be for the purpose of engaging Chapman Tripp, Mr Dickey KC and Morgan Coakle, to defend High Court proceedings filed in CIV- 2024-404-3017 and associated engagement letters with the lawyers of the applicant in the High Court proceedings.
- The applicants contend that the resolution was improperly passed and invalid as it breaches section 114D Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’) due to conflict of interest by committee members who voted on the resolution.
- Section 114D(1) UTA provides that a committee member who has a direct or indirect interest in a matter must disclose that interest and must not participate in any committee decision relating to it.
- The body corporate committee resolution dated 13 June 2025 was signed by John Love and Conrad Joblin-Hall, two of the three committee members appointed at the AGM held on 6 August 2024. The other committee member, Mr Haydon, did not sign and there is no record of him voting in favour of the resolution or attending a meeting.
- In seeking to invalidate the 13 June 2025 resolution, the applicants specifically ask for the return of levies paid pursuant to the resolution. The total amounts levies sought by the applicants for the body corporate to return is $40,392.95.
- By further Memorandum for the Applicants dated 29 January 2026, counsel advised that due to an oversight two of their 26 clients were not named on the list of applicants due to an error by a junior solicitor in transposing the list of High Court plaintiffs in CIV-2024-404-3017. The two unit owners’ names inadvertently omitted are Robert Seymour Cox (Unit 1201) and Benjamin, Christine, Joanna and Sophia Ling (Unit 804).
- I accede to counsel’s request for leave to correct the names of the applicants. I accept that no prejudice will result to the body corporate because the claim has been advanced throughout on the basis that the applicants were the plaintiffs in the High Court proceeding.
- I now address the substantive application sought in the Tribunal proceedings.
- The High Court proceedings brought by the plaintiffs (who are also the applicants in this proceeding before me) primarily relate to the developer of this unit title development Civic Lane Limited (‘CLL’) and John Love who is director of CLL. Both CLL and Mr Love are named defendants in the High Court proceedings and the litigation seeks to have Mr Love/CLL repay money they have been paid by the body corporate.
- The 13 June 2025 resolution in question is to have the body corporate fund legal expenses where (a) Mr Love and CLL’s lawyers were also acting for the body corporate, and (b) the body corporate was opposing the orders sought by the applicants in the litigation, was financially beneficial to Mr Love and CLL.
- Accordingly, Mr Love and CLL had direct personal financial interest in the matter which pertains to the 13 June 2025 resolution.
- Counsel for the applicants noted that Mr Joblin-Hall may also be “interested” for the purpose of section 114C(3)(b) UTA. Mr Joblin-Hall’s sale and purchase agreement has been disclosed in the High Court proceeding and records that he received a “family discount” on his apartment purchase. Mr Joblin-Hall’s relationship to Mr Love is not known by the applicants.
- The required quorum necessary for the transaction of the business of the committee is two out of a total of three members. The meeting was not quorate as 50% of the 2 members of the committee present were prohibited from voting and there were no other committee members in attendance.
- Under section 114D(3) UTA, if 50% or more of the members of the committee are prohibited from voting under subsection 114D(1), an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate must be called to consider and determine the matter. No EGM of the body corporate had been called to determine the matter set out in the 13 June 2025 resolution to raise a special levy for $150,000 to fund Mr Love’s and CLL’s legal proceedings in the High Court.
- With Mr Love’s invalid vote excluded, only one committee member (Mr Joblin- Hall) voted, falling short of the required two-member quorum.
- I find that the only two committee members who took part in the decision to strike the levy were “interested” as defined by section 114C UTA.
- While section 114C(2) UTA provides that conflicted committee members may still be counted for the purpose of determining whether there is a quorum, there were still no other committee members available to make any decision on the matter.
- Even if Mr Love alone was “interested”, the evidence before me is there was still not enough non-interested committee members who voted in favour of the motion in order for it to pass.
- Consequently, the 13 June 2025 resolution must fail and be rendered invalid.
- Pursuant to section 171(3A)(a) UTA, a Tenancy Tribunal may, in relation to a unit title dispute within its jurisdiction, order any party to do anything necessary to remedy a breach by that party of an obligation arising under this Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any agreement that is binding on the party and relevant to the unit title dispute.
- The Tenancy Tribunal make also any supplementary orders of a consequential or ancillary nature necessary to exercise or perfect the exercise of any of its jurisdiction: see section 171(3A)(c) UTA.
- I accede to the applicants’ claim and order the body corporate to return to the applicants levies raised pursuant to the resolution of 13 June 2025 by payment of $40,392.95 to the trust account of their solicitors Pidgeon Judd within 7 days of service of this decision.
- The applicants’ respective entitlement to the $40,392.95 is set out in [5] of the Memorandum for the Applicants dated 29 January 2026 as follows: Applicant
CAB PU
(and AU if any) Invoice number Invoice amount Matthew & Sara Julie Hall and Paul Gregory Logan 1302 (13C)1173$ 1,395.30 John Andrew Dibble & Mary Ann Cabrera Yarisantos 1602 (16C/D) 1193$ 2,739.45 George Beran, Natalie Jane Beran & Raewyn Margaret Rose Beran 402 (4C)1098$ 1,165.35 Adrian Terence Charlesworth & Matthew James Hedges PU102 (1C)1079$ 1,104.00 Shin-Yi Chen301 (3B)1110$ 1,242.00 Barbara Mabel Daly 1303 (13D)1175$ 1,093.80 Elisabeth Diwald1506 (15A)1185$ 1,921.65 Elisabeth Diwald 1501 (15B) AU1501D 1165$ 1,569.15 Richard Grant Ebbett 1601 (16B) AU 1601D 1168$ 1,604.85 Joseph Eagle Gaglione 601 (6B) AU601D 1140$ 1,308.45
Jianqiu Gao & Dongqi Shi 306 (3A1)1096$ 618.45 Yu Yin302 (3C)1092$ 1,144.80 Craig Rouse 801 (8B) AU 801D 1147$ 1,349.40 Francis John Rijnbeek 1101 (11B) AU1101D 1158$ 1,446.45 Francis John Rijnbeek 1605(16A)1179$ 1,967.70 Danny Seto, Belinda Jan Set & Shaun Kenneth Seto 903 (9D2)1139$ 1,057.95 Guotao Tan & Huafeng Tan 1006 (10A2)1152$ 1,057.95 Qi Mei Yu7B1144$ 1,328.85 Qi Mei Yu7C1123$ 1,226.55 Qi Mei Yu7D1124$ 920.90 Yi Zhang and Xuejiao Feng 401 AU491D1113$ 1,262.40 Reuben Spath1204 (12E)1166$ 889.35 Joseph Rich & Sanon Cherdchoo 202 (2C)1085$ 1,124.40 Moore and Moore Ltd 1002 (10C/D)1109$ 1,753.05 Moore and Moore Ltd 504 (5E)1146$ 766.65 Pearly Trustee Company Ltd 305 (3F) AU201D 1095$ 1,175.55 Alice Lynn Webster Oram 1001 (10B)1153$ 2,126.25 Great North Investments 304 (3E)1094$ 735.90
2013 Ltd CC Investments 2018 Ltd 603 (6D)1117$ 1,006.80 Robert Seymour Cox 1201 (12B)1160$ 1,482.15 Benjamin Hung Li Ling, Christine Jern Sze Ling, Joanna Jen En Ling & Sophia Li Sze Ling 804 (8E1)1132$ 807.45 TOTAL$ 40,392.95
- The applicants seek costs.
- Costs follow the event; the applicants, being wholly successful in the proceedings, is entitled to costs.
- The factors set out in Holden Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR at 148-149 apply. A reasonable contribution to costs is based on a “shopping list” of factors – for example the length of the hearing, the amount involved, the importance of the issues, legal and factual complexity, urgency, preparation time, any unnecessary steps, arguments lacking substance, unnecessarily technical points taken, degree of success and conduct of the parties. The overriding approach is to award a reasonable contribution to the successful party’s reasonable costs.
- Having regard to the above factors, I find that a recovery of 90% of the applicants’ costs is reasonable. That equates to $11,888.72, based on counsel’s invoices set out in [8] of the Memorandum for the Applicants dated 29 January 2026.
- I also award reimbursement of the filing fee of $500.00.