Former Owner Ordered to Pay $43,778.22 for Costs Related to Outstanding Levies
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the former owner must pay the claimant $43,778.22 for costs related to recovering outstanding levies. This decision emphasises the importance of prompt payment of levies and the recovery of associated costs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A defaulting unit owner must pay reasonable costs incurred by the claimant in recovering outstanding levies.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a body corporate must set a due date for levy payments. If a levy is not paid, the body corporate can recover the unpaid amount, along with any reasonable costs it incurs in collecting that levy, from the unit owner.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the former owner to pay the claimant $43,778.22 for costs incurred in recovering outstanding levies.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the former owner to pay the claimant $43,778.22 for costs incurred in recovering outstanding levies. The Tribunal considered the protracted nature of the claim and the reasonable costs incurred by the claimant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9058365 1
[2025] NZTT 9058365
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND - SPECIALIST COURTS AND TRIBUNALS CENTRE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
UNIT ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] $43,778.22 immediately, calculated as follows:
Descriptions Applicant Respondent
Costs – sections 124 ad 127 Unit Titles Act 2010
$36,821.47
Costs incurred since hearing on 3 December 2024
$6,956.75
Total award $43,778.22
Total payable by Respondent to Applicant
$43,778.22
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9058365 2
Reasons:
1. On 3 December 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision on the [NAME]’s claim for outstanding remedial levies. It awarded the [NAME] $55,213.53 for the outstanding levies ($54,713.53) and the filing fee ($500.00). No claim for interest was made.
2. Counsel for the [NAME] sought costs of $36,821.47 which included the preparation for and appearance at the High Court proceedings that preceded the application.
3. I invited submissions on costs from counsel since I had reservations about awarding costs incurred in another Court.
4. Counsel has provided submissions addressing that issue. She has referred to a relevant decision where the Tribunal decided a similar issue, previous High Court proceedings and costs incurred pursuing an order for sale – see [NAME] 85172 v [NAME] [2024] NZTT 904724/UT.
5. Counsel has also referred the Tribunal to the decision of Judge Harrison in [NAME] 331094 v [NAME] [2015] NZDC 17745 as authority for the recovery of legal fees both under section 127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) and under section 124 UTA.
6. [ADDRESS] noted in that decision that other members of a [NAME] who have paid their levies should not be expected to pay the costs of the recovery of unpaid levies from defaulting unit owners.
7. Here, the costs incurred, and the costs now claimed, are due entirely to the actions of the defaulting (former) unit owners. It would be unfair and unjust were the other unit owners to be called upon to pay a portion of those costs by way of an additional levy.
8. Case law has established that the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the [NAME] in recovering outstanding levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable. While the amount sought is high, the claim has had a protracted history starting in 2017 when matters first came before the Tribunal.
9. Counsel has provided time and costs records to support the claim for costs. The Tribunal is not required to forensically examine the records; it simply need be persuaded that the claim for costs, viewed objectively, is reasonable. It is.
10.The [NAME] has incurred additional costs since the hearing preparing submissions on costs to address concerns the Tribunal raised. Its claim for those costs is objectively reasonable as well.
11.The former owners will therefore pay the [NAME] costs of $43,778.22 in total compromising the costs incurred in the recovery of the outstanding remedial levies (that required High Court proceedings to obtain an order for sale) as well as
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9058365 3
the preparation of and appearance on the complex issues that comprised the Tribunal application, and additional costs incurred for the preparation of submissions requested by the Tribunal.
[NAME] 11 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9058365 4
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 defaulting unit owners' actions were the sole cause of the costs incurred, making it fair for them to pay.
- Other unit owners who paid their levies should not bear the burden of recovery costs from defaulting owners.
- The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimed costs are reasonable, despite the high amount, given the case's long history.
- The claimant provided time and cost records, which the Tribunal found sufficient to support the reasonableness of the claim.
- Additional costs incurred by the claimant for preparing submissions on costs, as requested by the Tribunal, were also deemed reasonable.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the former owner to pay the claimant $43,778.22 for costs related to recovering outstanding levies.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the former owner's refusal to pay outstanding levies and the claimant's costs incurred in recovering these levies.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the former owner must pay the claimant the specified amount because the costs were deemed reasonable and necessary for recovering the outstanding levies.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Unit Titles Act 2010, sections 124 and 127, were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the costs incurred by the claimant were reasonable and directly related to the recovery of outstanding levies.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this decision suggests that they can seek recovery of reasonable costs incurred in collecting outstanding levies.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it refers to the costs incurred and the claimant's efforts in recovering the levies.