What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9072504?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 384983 is to provide to Mr Stephenson all documentation

How much money was awarded in case 9072504?

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 9072504?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9072504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9072504?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 384983 is to provide to Mr Stephenson all documentation

How much money was awarded in case 9072504?

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 9072504?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9072504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Newmarket, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9072504 — Unit Titles

Order

Body Corporate 384983 is to provide to Mr Stephenson all documentation set out in Schedule 1 of this order, within 30 working days of the date of this order.
Body Corporate 384983 is to provide to Mr Stephenson a copy of the owners register within 5 working days of the date of this order.
Costs can be charged for the work of collating and providing the documents falling within the section 206 request. The costs must be calculated based on the actual time taken by the Body Corporate Manager to collate the documentation, and it must be based on the hourly rate as set out in the contract for services between the Body Corporate Manager and the Body Corporate. If no hourly rate is recorded in the contract, then it is to be charged at $75.00 per hour. The Applicants must pay the invoiced amount within 10 working days of receiving the invoice.
Body Corporate 384983 is to immediately pay the applicants the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding, being $500.00.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a group of 16 unit owners, seeking specific documentation to be provided by the Body Corporate.
For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the information requested must be released to the Body Corporate, and orders around the costs for that work have also been made.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not particularly involved.
The applicants have requested a range of documentation be provided by the Body Corporate.
When their documentation was not provided, on 2 September 2025, the Applicants applied for orders of the Tribunal, requiring the documents to be produced.
A case conference was conveyed on 5 November 2025 before myself. In attendance was Mr Stephenson representing the Applicants, and Ms Chiu representing the Body Corporate. At the case conference, Ms Chiu advised that the Body Corporate needed to work through the list of requested documents to determine if they would be provided and whether any cost would be involved. The Tribunal made directions that the Body Corporate confirm to Mr Stephenson what documents “will or will not be provided” by 31 December 2025.
On 22 December 2025, Ms Morrison from the Body Corporate’s legal representative, Cuncannon, emailed Mr Stephenson, setting out a range of documentation that it was agreeable to provide and stating: The Body Corporate has reviewed and considered the documents requested. It is content to provide the documents listed below but will require your clients to meet the costs of obtaining/locating and collating them. Due to the volume of information requested, these costs are estimated to be around $12,000-$12,500 plus GST and disbursements, comprising the Body Corporate secretary’s costs of $8,500-9,000 plus GST and disbursements and legal costs of $3,500 plus GST and disbursements. .... Once your client confirms that the costs will be met to provide these documents, the process of collating the documents will commence. The documents can either be provided as they become ready or provided altogether when ready. Please let us know if your clients have any preference. We note that requests will need to be made to third parties for some of the record, for example the bank.
For completeness, the response did not address the documents that would not be provided, nor the reasons for withholding the documents.
Mr Stephenson responded on 23 January 2016, advising that while the applicants were content paying the reasonable costs, there was no ability to require payment of legal fees, and that otherwise the claimed 60 hours of costs would not be reasonable, and were disproportionate. Mr Stephenson also noted that the response had not included a range of requested material.
I can see from copies of emails that Mr Stephenson followed up with the legal representative, but no substantive response was received. At the hearing today Mr Stevenson advised that he did not receive any further response, and neither were the documents supplied, including those documents that the Body Corporate had agreed to supply.
On 17 March 2026, Mr Stephenson filed a memorandum seeking to have the hearing set down, given that the documents had not been provided.
The hearing was scheduled for 7 April 2026. The hearing notice was served to the Body Corporate by way of the Body Corporate Manager. No further communication was received from the Body Corporate or its representative, and there was no appearance by the Body Corporate or its representative at the hearing.

APPLICANTS CASE

The Applicant’s position is that the requested information should be provided by way of a Tribunal order. It is submitted that the request falls within section 206 of the UTA: It is submitted that the Body Corporate, having failed to provide a recent response to the disclosure requests, is in breach of its obligations under section 206 and orders should be made requiring disclosure.
At the hearing, Mr Stephenson set by way of examples, the concerns held by the applicant unit owners around the operation of this body corporate complex.
Mr Stephenson confirmed that while the Body Corporate has acknowledged that some documents would be provided, it has provided no explanation as to why it was not agreeable to providing the remainder. From an administrative law perspective, reasons need to be given.
It was submitted that providing documents under section 206 provides a mandatory obligation on a body corporate. While certain documents are specified as needing to be provided, subsection 1(g) provides a broad discretion to disclose any other documents that the body corporate considers reasonable in the circumstances.
The Applicants do not take issue with the necessity to pay for the documents being provided, but submit that any charges must be reasonable, and setting a high figure before the documents are collated and disclosed would not be reasonable.
Mr Stephenson submits that the role of the body corporate is analogous to that of a trustee, and when legal advice is obtained in relation to the administration and management of common property, that is for the benefit of the unit owners collectively. Privilege cannot be asserted against those who have a joint interest in that advice; it is the unit owners whose interests the body corporate exists to serve.
It was submitted that disclosure should be ordered as: a. There is no privilege preventing the release of the information to the members of the body corporate. b. There is no commercial sensitivity in preventing disclosure and if there was, the direct financial interest of the body corporate members and their governance interests would outweigh that commercial sensitivity. c. The applicants are prepared to pay reasonable costs. d. There are legitimate concerns over the operation of the body corporate in basing the request. e. The body corporate’s decision-making is reviewable. f. The issues involve non-compliance with statutory provisions concerning the collection of money, voting, elections and conflict of interest, all significant matters under the Act.

BODY CORPORATES CASE

Again, there was no appearance by the Body Corporate at the hearing, the Body Corporate has not filed submissions, and I do not know what the Body Corporate's position is in this matter.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Tribunal must consider an application for the provision of documents, being an application under section 206 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). That provision holds: 206 Provision of records and documents (1) The body corporate must, on request from a unit owner, make copies of the following records and documents available for purchase by the unit owner: (a) the body corporate operational rules: (b) all current insurance policies held by the body corporate or its head body corporate in respect of the buildings and improvements on the base land: (c) the long-term maintenance plan: (d) any agendas or minutes of the body corporate: (e) the financial statements: (f) any other documents the owner of a principal unit is required to provide under subpart 14 of Part 2: (g) any other records or documents if the body corporate thinks it is reason‐ able in the circumstances to provide those records or documents. (2) 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.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider an application to direct that the Body Corporate release specific documentation requested by the group of unit owners. I consider there are three matters to be considered, those are: a. Whether the requested information should be disclosed under section 206. b. Whether the owners’ register should be disclosed; and c. If the information is to be provided, how and what costs should be provided?

Should the information be disclosed under section 206?

I must consider whether the information requested should be provided by the Body Corporate under section 206. The considerations relating to the owners register fall within different provisions, so this initial discussion does not relate to the register.
This is a troubling Body Corporate. It is clear that there is significant conflict between members of the Body Corporate, and there are significant concerns regarding wide-ranging and important matters. Those include financial concerns, including the awarding of contracts, as well as the overall governance of the complex.
Plainly there are concerns around decision-making, and I note a previous order from the Tribunal of 3 March 2026 1 , where the Tribunal determined that a range of resolutions around the raising of levies were ultra vires and void, because the Body Corporate had not applied the statutory framework around levy setting.
In the course of this application, I have received a statement from Jason Wenjie Zhao, one of the unit owners, which sets out his concerns as an example. Those include: a. Concerns around voting at AGM’s, where no formal voting procedures are implemented, and uncertainty around how voting is counted. b. Uncertainty regarding the terms and conditions that apply for the body corporate manager. c. The irregular raising of levies, allocated to different parts of the development. d. Concerns around significant works, including recladding and the installation of fire sprinklers. In relation to that work, no reports are being provided to the unit owners from suitably qualified experts. e. Concerns that the insurance company has required work to be undertaken, but the nature of that work has not being disclosed to the owners. 1 Tham v Body Corporate 384983 [2026] NZTT 9061406, 9051364. f. Concerns that contracts are being allocated to companies associated with the body corporate chair, without adequate transparency or decision-making. g. Concerns regarding the involvement of the body corporate manager, regarding appointments to the committee. h. A belief that invalid proxy voting has been counted. i. Failure to provide transparency around the remuneration of the body corporate manager.
While I will express no view as to the merits of those concerns, I have summarised them to show the level of concern the applicants take.
Section 206 provides a list of documents where there is a presumption that they should be released to requesting unit owners. Of the specific documents in that provision, probably only subsection 1(e) being financial statements, is relevant, but that does indicate a statutory expectation that financial statements be provided to the applicants.
But the significant bulk of the request do not relate to the specific documents, and therefore may fall within the catch-all provision found at subsection 1(g), which again is: The body corporate must, on request from a unit owner, make copies of the following records and documents available for purchase by the unit owner: ... (g) any other records or documents if the body corporate thinks it is reasonable in the circumstances to provide those records or documents.
This provision provides a discretion to the Body Corporate, where if the Body Corporate deems that it would be reasonable in the circumstances to provide other requested records or documents, it must do so.
In this case, plainly, the Body Corporate has made a decision to provide some documents, but not all. I note the direction from the case conference on 5 November 2025 was that the body corporate needed to notify Mr Stephenson what documents “will or will not be provided”. Of course the Body Corporate has notified the documents that it would provide, and while it has not listed the remaining documents, given they have been specifically requested, it must be the case that the Body Corporate has declined to provide the other documents.
The Body Corporate has not provided any explanation for why the other documents would not be provided. I agree with Mr Stephenson, that there was an expectation on the Body Corporate to explain why the other documents were not to be produced to the requesting unit owners. It is unfortunate that the Body Corporate did not attend the hearing to explain why the other documentation was to be withheld.
There is no doubt that the documentation that has been requested is extensive, but that of itself is not a reason for withholding it. The Body Corporate has a manager, and providing documentation under section 206 is one of the roles that the manager has, and furthermore, the cost incurred with providing the documentation is paid by the requesting unit owners, so there is no actual cost involved for the Body Corporate.
Finally, there is an issue as to whether any of the legal advice requested would fall into the legally privileged category. It is difficult for me to reach a view on that, as I have not heard from the Body Corporate on the stance it takes with disclosure on any specific documents.
I note the High Court decision of Hayes v BC 162225 [2016] NZHC 487, where the Court accepted that legal advice could be provided under section 206(1)(g), and that if: an issue arises on which legal advice has been taken, then a request can be made and s 206(1)(g) of the 2010 Act can allow disclosure if that is seen to be reasonable. If there is a refusal to disclose, then the reasons for that can be tested in Court if the matter is serious enough.
Similarly, in Young v BC 85659 [2018] NZHC 150, the Court also accepted that legal advice could fall within that section 206, but matters falling within the ‘periphery of privilege’ should be disclosed, but that there may be reasons not to disclose advice with more significant privilege.
In relation to the legal advice, I considered the appropriate course of action is for that to be released, but there is no reason that the advice could not be redacted if a privilege is claimed. In the event that there is a dispute regarding redacted information, then that would need to be the subject of a fresh claim, and a matter for another day.
Ultimately, the Body Corporate has not identified any reason the documents should not be provided, and taking into consideration that I accept the concerns raised by the 16 applicant owners are significant and honestly held, I consider there is utility in the documents being provided, and therefore that order is made. Owners register
The considerations relating to the owners register are different.
As above, the unit owners have concerns around the operation of this complex, and the light of that wish to communicate with all of the other unit owners. There is nothing unusual in that, and it is not problematic from a legal perspective. But in order to be able to engage with the other unit owners, the Applicants need to access the owners’ register.
For reasons I do not know, the Body Corporate has denied the Applicants access to that register.
Section 85 of the UTA requires that the Body Corporate maintain a register of unit owners: (1) A body corporate must keep and maintain a register of all owners of principal units and accessory units on the unit plan in accordance with the regulations.
The relevant regulations are the Unit Titles Regulations 2011, which importantly sets out a right for a unit owner to search the register, the relevant regulations require at regulation 4: (3) The following may search a register of unit owners for the purposes specified in subclause (4): (a) the chairperson: (b) the body corporate committee: (c) a person approved by the body corporate or the body corporate committee. (4) The purposes referred to in subclause (3) are— (a) to give notice of body corporate meetings: (b) to give notice of resolutions voted on: (c) to advise unit owners of matters relating to the body corporate or the unit title development: (d) to serve documents: (e) to forward information or documentation from a unit owner to another unit owner, provided that the information or documentation— (i) relates to the management of the unit title development; or (ii) relates to the use or enjoyment of the unit title development.
Accordingly, the regulations require the Body Corporate to maintain a register of unit owners with their contact details, and those can be searched by a person approved by the Body Corporate if the purpose of the search is to forward documents from one unit owner to other unit owners around the management of the complex – which I accept is the case here.
I note the Court of Appeal decision of Lihua Limited v BC 366611 and Others [2013] NZCA 630. In that case Lihua believed the body corporate to be insolvent and poorly managed, and wanted to communicate to the other unit owners in relation to that. As it relates to regulation 4(4), the Court of Appeal said this:. [28]...Regulation 4(4) protects the privacy interests of unit owners, which extends to keeping their names and contact details from fellow owners. But that interest gives way where a fellow owner wishes to contact them for generously defined purposes. [29] It bears emphasis that the power to deny a unit owner access to the register is a very modest one. The regulation supports accountability of the committee and body corporate by facilitating independent communication among unit owners about the development’s management or use and enjoyment. An applicant may wish to contact fellow owners precisely because it has failed to achieve its objectives via the body corporate’s governance processes or management. It follows that the committee cannot justify denying access merely because it disagrees with the applicant on the merits of any given dispute. [30] We observe that an applicant might sensibly satisfy the committee of its purpose by providing a copy of the proposed communication, as [the High Court] suggested, but that is not a prerequisite. If the committee feels the need to set the record straight it may contact owners itself.
I note that one of the arguments made by the body corporate in that case, was that the right to access the register was akin to judicial review proceedings. That argument did not find favour with the High Court, which observed that: [31] Mr Price argued that any application for access must be treated as if it were an application for judicial review. He emphasised that the power to grant or deny access is a statutory power. Indeed it is, but it does not follow that an owner must seek relief in the High Court or make out grounds for judicial review. The 2010 Act confers on the Tenancy Tribunal jurisdiction to decide all disputes between unit owners and the body corporate or its administrators, and the Tribunal makes its decisions on the merits, serving as what has been called an “expeditious clearing house” for such disputes. The District Court and High Court also have jurisdiction in certain circumstances.
This is a case where I am certain that the Applicants have genuine reasons for wanting to communicate with the other owners about management of this complex, and I find that they meet the requirements to be allowed access to the owners register in order to obtain the owners contact details to communicate with them directly. I make orders that the register be provided. Costs for work to collate and provide documents
There is no dispute from the Applicants that they will need to pay the cost involved with collating and providing the requested documentation. Certainly, section 206(2) confirms that the reasonable costs incurred in providing the records and documents may be charged.
However, I agree with Mr Stephenson, that the provisions in section 206, limit the cost to those reasonably incurred in providing the records, that is the plain statutory wording.
It must follow that in order to determine what the cost would be, the work must be undertaken first. Perhaps if this were a request for a small number of specific documents, that could be determined with accuracy in advance, but I do not consider that likely given the breadth of the documentation requested.
To be fair to the Body Corporate, the email from Ms Morrison of 22 December 2025, sets out what the estimated costs are, not what the specific cost was.
I do agree with Mr Stephenson’s submission that the cost would be limited to the work undertaken by the manager in collating the documents, not in legal cost associated with that. If the Body Corporate wishes to obtain that legal advice regarding its legal responsibilities, that is a matter for the Body Corporate; it is not a cost to produce the documents.
In terms of how the cost must be calculated, that must be on the actual time involved with collating and providing the documents, tallied in the usual way. The contract that exists between the manager and the body corporate will no doubt (or at least it should) define what the hourly rate for the manager’s work is, and that is the hourly rate to be applied to the tallied hours.
In the event the contract does not include an hourly rate, then I consider a reasonable rate to be applied would be $75 per hour.
But ultimately, an invoice needs to be produced from the manager setting out the hours worked, and the respective rate, but once that is provided, I direct that the Applicants pay that charge within 10 working days. Costs
The Applicants seeks an order for costs.
Because the Applicants have been successful in their claim, the Body Corporate must pay the filing fee to commence the proceeding, which is $500, that is to be paid immediately.
The parties should attempt to agree on representation costs for the Applicants. If no agreement can be reached, then the Applicants are to file a submission regarding representation costs to the Tribunal and the Body Corporate, and the Body Corporate must file response submissions within 10 working days. The Tribunal will issue a cost order on the papers. Schedule 1 – Specific documentation to be provided under section 206, and clause 4. Unlawful Charges / Levies A. Legal advice or correspondence from legal advisors issued to or for the benefit of the Body Corporate concerning whether its method of raising levies is intra vires the Act; B. Copies of the terms of engagement and correspondence with Opteon in instructing and procuring the 2024 utility interest assessment; C. A copy of the contract between the Body Corporate manager and the Body Corporate; D. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or any resulting orders. On-Charges E. Legal advice or correspondence from legal advisors issued to or for the benefit of the Body Corporate concerning whether its methods of on-charging are intra vires the Act; F. Watercare invoices to the Body Corporate for the last three years; G. Gas charges and rates charged to the Body Corporate for the last three years; H. Amounts collected by the Body Corporate for water and gas over the last three years; I. Instructions issued by or on behalf of the Body Corporate to debt collection companies in respect of any of the applicants’ units in the last 12 months; J. A copy of the contract between the Body Corporate manager and the Body Corporate; K. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. Meeting Procedure L. Legal advice or correspondence from legal advisors issued to or for the benefit of the Body Corporate concerning the vires of decisions to exclude owners from voting or standing for election; M. Instructions issued by or on behalf of the Body Corporate to debt collection companies in respect of any of the applicants’ units in the last 12 months; N. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. Sprinkler Project O. Expert reports or investigations into building code fire compliance; P. The tender documents, including requests for tender and tender submissions; Q. Insurance correspondence requiring the sprinkler works; R. Meeting minutes and Body Corporate correspondence relating to the procurement decision, contracts entered into and invoices issued as expenses for or related to the project; S. Any advice received in relation to conflicts of interest; T. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. Recladding Project U. Expert reports or investigations into building code fire compliance and/or the ACP cladding; V. Insurance correspondence requiring the sprinkler works; W. The tender documents, including requests for tender and tender submissions; X. Meeting minutes and Body Corporate correspondence relating to the procurement decision; Y. Contracts entered into and invoices issued as expenses for or related to the project; Z. Any advice received in relation to the project and in relation to any conflicts of interest; AA. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. LTMP Contract BB. All invitations or request for proposals issued by the Body Corporate for the provision of a long term maintenance plan; CC. All responses to any requests for proposals for invitations issued by the Body Corporate to provide a long term maintenance plan; DD. All meeting minutes and Body Corporate correspondence relating to the procurement decision for the LTMP; EE. A copy of the contract or engagement of Q Designz Limited; FF. Copies of all invoices issued in respect of the contract or otherwise related to the LTMP; GG. Any advice received in relation to conflicts of interest; HH. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. Legal Services II. The letter of engagement with Lyn Lim JJ. The letter of engagement with Meredith Connell; KK. Bills issued by legal advisors to the Body Corporate within the last 36 months; LL. The register of owners, for the purpose of communicating with other owners about the issue, including copies of this application and/or resulting orders. General Financial Disclosure MM. The bank statements and financial records of the Body Corporate for the last 7 years.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9072504 — Unit Titles in Newmarket, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9072504 — Unit Titles in Newmarket, Auckland

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CASE

BODY CORPORATES CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Should the information be disclosed under section 206?

Property management

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CASE

BODY CORPORATES CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Should the information be disclosed under section 206?

Property management