Appeal from Tenancy Tribunal — appeal from interlocutory decision — whether jurisdiction exists — joinder — amendment to claim — transfer of proceedings — costs — legal forms or technicalities — Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 80, 83(2), 85, 96, 97(4), 102, 104, 115B, 117 & 119 — Interpretation Act 1999, s 5 — Unit Titles Act 2010, s 124, 171 & 206 — High Court Rules 2016 & District Court Rules 2014, rr 4.16, 4.4 & 4.56 — Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 9 — Wing On So and Ors v Body Corporate 349200 and Ors 28 August 2023 [2023] NZTT Auckland 9035062 — Wing On So and Ors v Body Corporate 349200 and Ors 12 September 2023 [2023] NZTT Auckland 9035062 — Wing On So and Ors v Body Corporate 349200 and Ors 27 October 2023 [2023] NZTT Auckland 9035062 — Housing Corporation New Zealand v Salt District Court Auckland CIV 2007-004-002875, 9 May 2008 — Shotover Gorge Jetboats v Jamieson [1987] 1 NZLR 437 — Austin Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar SC 21/2007 11 December 2007 — Taipeti v R [2018] NZCA 56, [2018] 3 NZLR 308 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — Harrington v Wilding [2019] NZCA 605 — Ministry of Social Development v B [2022] NZHC 198 — Guardian Retail Holdings Ltd v Buddle Findlay & Ors (CIV-2013-404-001148) [2013] NZHC 1582 — Singh v Boutique Body Corporate [2019] NZHC 1707 — TSB Bank Ltd v Burgess [2013] NZHC 1228 — Body Corporate 195681 v Cheah 12 June 2014, District Court Auckland — Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZHC 185 — Exuberant Limited v Quinovic Property Management Ltd [2021] NZHC 353 — Hart v Body Corporate No 180455 HC Auckland CIV 2005-404-1429, 23 June 2005 — Body Corporate No 164205 v Berachah Investments Ltd HC Auckland 2010-404-3324 8 June 2005 — Body Corporate 45131 v 88 Chi Limited [2023] NZDC 9036, 12 May 2023 — Frater Williams & Company Limited v Australian Guarantee Corporation (NZ) Limited (1994) 2 NZConvC 191, 873 — Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185 — York Trustees Limited v Body Corporate 166208 [2017] NZDC 796 — Body Corporate 85928 v Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535 — Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard [2023] NZDC 19645. This was an appeal from four decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal. In the Tribunal, the appellants sought orders for discovery/production of documents; leave to amend their claim, and a transfer of the proceedings to the District Court. The appellants also applied to join further parties to the Tribunal proceedings, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. This decision was not appealed. Costs orders were imposed by the Tribunal on various applications, and the costs orders were also appealed. A preliminary issue was to be dealt with first: whether there was jurisdiction to appeal what were effectively interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal. The Court considered the language in s 117 of the Residential Tenancies Act and determined that had Parliament wanted to expressly prohibit appeals of interlocutory decisions it would have done so. Therefore, jurisdiction existed to file and hear the appeals. On the application for transfer of proceedings to the District Court and for the production of documents, the Court determined that the Adjudicator had taken all relevant factors into consideration in both circumstances. Both of these appeals were dismissed. On the application for leave to amend the claim, the Court determined that it would not have caused prejudice to any party for the appellants to be allowed to amend their claim. The Court upheld this appeal. On the costs appeal, the Court noted that there were two issues: whether costs should have been awarded in favour of the committee members, and the level of costs awarded generally. Costs had been awarded following the Tribunal dismissing the joinder application. At issue was whether there was jurisdiction to award costs in favour of the committee members, given they were never a "party" to the proceedings. The Court held that the Adjudicator was entitled to do so, as the Tribunal did not have to rigidly follow legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal was entitled to treat them as a party for the purposes of the application and they were therefore also entitled to claim for costs. On the issue of level of costs, the Court determined that a principled approach would have resulted in each respondent being awarded $3,000. The Court upheld the costs appeal in part. The Court substituted the award of costs for the first respondents and committee members to awards each of $3,000. The second respondent's cost award of $3,000 remained the same. Given all parties had been partially successful on appeal, no costs were awarded for the appeals to the District Court. Judgment Date: 31 May 2024.