district court logo

York Trustees Ltd v Body Corporate Number 166208 [2017] NZDC 7961

Published 23 March 2018

Tenancy Tribunal appeal jurisdiction — water rates — Housing New Zealand Corporation v Salt — Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185 — Unit Titles Act 2010 — Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In this appeal against a decision made in the Tenancy Tribunal, the appellant is the owner of a unit in an apartment complex. The Tenancy Tribunal delivered a decision in which the Body Corporate was successful in recovering charges and levies owed by the appellant but incurred costs in collecting these levies, the Tenancy Tribunal allowed only what it considered reasonable contribution to solicitor client costs. The Body Corporate cross-appealed in respect of costs. The appellant put forward 3 strands or grounds of appeal: that the Tribunal erred when making a decision in regards to water rates as the amount claimed did not fit within the strict interpretation of the Unit Title Act, s 125; costs were awarded in error as none of the costs incurred were chargeable ; and claimed that the figure charged by the Body Corporate was unsupported by a detailed statement. The Court noted that under the Residential Tenancies Act, s 85 the Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal interpretations and can make decisions in a practical, non-rule bound and fair manner. Therefore, the Tribunal had the right to find as it did and the first ground of appeal failed. The court found that the Unit Titles Act, s 124 was satisfied and that any "reasonable costs" incurred in collecting the levy can be recovered with the levy itself , so the second ground of appeal failed. The court also found that the Tenancy Tribunal was in possession of all the relevant information it required in order to find that levies imposed upon the appellant were correct and substantiated, the third ground of appeal also failed and the appeal was dismissed. In regards to the cross-appeal, the court found that a "reasonable contribution" in collecting levies meant that the Body Corporate was entitled to its actual reasonable costs, and the cross-appeal was successful. The court quashed the Tribunal's order for contribution to solicitor/client costs and substituted an order that the appellant pay the actual and reasonable costs to the Body Corporate costs on the appeal and cross-appeal. The appellant was further ordered to pay costs on the appeal and cross-appeal. Judgment Date: 11 April 2017

Tags