Claimant Awarded Costs for Breach of Operational Rules
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, awarding them $3,570.33 for costs incurred due to a breach of operational rules. This decision was made under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant is entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred due to a breach of the Act or operational rules.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a body corporate to recover costs if it has to do repairs or work because a unit owner, or someone connected to them, acted wilfully or negligently, or breached the Act, body corporate rules, or regulations. The body corporate can recover the expense of the work and any reasonable costs for collecting that money.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was awarded costs under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the claimant $3,570.33 for costs incurred due to a breach of operational rules. The Tribunal found the costs reasonable under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9054884 1
[2025] NZTT 9054884
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT
APPLICANT: [redacted]
RESPONDENT: [redacted] Owner of a principal unit
UNIT ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] must pay [NAME] $3,570.33 immediately being the costs awarded on this application.
Reasons:
1. On 24 October 2024, the Tribunal made Orders in respect of the [NAME]’s application for enforcement of the [NAME].
2. Costs were reserved. The Tribunal made directions for making any submissions in relation to costs. Extensions were then granted.
3. Both parties have made submissions but neither submission is fulsome.
4. The [NAME] sought $3,570.33 being the “reasonable costs incurred” and provided evidence of time records. It did not make any submission as to why indemnity costs should be awarded in this case. Neither parties’ submissions addressed issues which would assist the Tribunal in the exercise of a discretion in relation to costs.
5. However, I allow the [NAME]’s claim for actual and reasonable costs incurred under section 127 Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).
6. Section 127 UTA provides that any expense incurred by the [NAME] in
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9054884 2
7. doing an act that was rendered necessary by reason of any breach of the Act, the [NAME] operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner together with any reasonable costs in collecting the expense, is recoverable as a debt due to the [NAME] by the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.
8. I am satisfied that the costs sought by the [NAME] constitutes the doing of work, or act that was rendered necessary by reason of the respondent’s breach of the [NAME]. [NAME] v [NAME] 406198 [2021] NZTT Auckland 9023361.
[NAME] 01 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9054884 3
Please read carefully:
SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS [COMPANY] [PHONE].
MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE [COMPANY] [PHONE].
AFAI E TE MANA’OMIA SE FESOASOANI E UIGA I LENEI MATAUPU FA’AMOLEMOLE IA FA’AFESO’OTAI’I LOA LE OFISA O LE [COMPANY] [PHONE].
Rehearings:
You may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for a rehearing. Such an application must be made within five working days of the order and must be lodged at the Court where the dispute was heard.
The only ground for a rehearing of an application is that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Being unhappy or dissatisfied with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. (See ‘Right of Appeal’ below).
Right of Appeal:
If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, you may appeal to the District Court. You only have 10 working days after the date of the decision to lodge a notice of appeal.
However, you may not appeal to the District Court:
1. Against an interim order made by the Tribunal. 2. Against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the
amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000. 3. Against a work order, or the failure to make a work order, where the value of the work
that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.
There is a $200.00 filing fee payable at the time of filing the appeal.
Enforcement:
Where the Tribunal made an order that needs to be enforced then the party seeking enforcement should contact the Collections Office of the District Court on [PHONE] or go to www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc:
Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant provided evidence of time records for the costs incurred.
- The costs were deemed necessary due to the respondent's breach of operational rules.
- The claimant requested reasonable costs under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant did not provide a detailed explanation for why indemnity costs should be awarded.
- Neither party addressed issues that could have helped the Tribunal make a more informed decision on costs.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was awarded $3,570.33 for costs incurred due to a breach of operational rules.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant could recover costs due to a breach of operational rules.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, finding the costs reasonable under the Unit Titles Act 2010.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Unit Titles Act 2010, specifically section 127, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the costs were reasonable and necessary due to the breach of operational rules.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can potentially recover reasonable costs incurred due to a breach of operational rules.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.
