Tenant's Cost Recovery Claim Rejected by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the claimant's request for reimbursement of costs related to damage to their electrical system and fittings, ruling that the damage was not caused by the respondent.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot recover losses from another tenant when they did not cause the damage.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application for reimbursement of costs was dismissed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal rejected the claimant's application for reimbursement of costs related to damage to their electrical system and fittings, finding that the damage was not caused by the respondent.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9059984 1
[2025] NZTT 9055324; 9059984
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI
APPLICANT: [redacted] Owner of a principal unit
RESPONDENT: [redacted] Owner of a principal unit
UNIT ADDRESS: Unit/Flat B, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] must pay [NAME] $5,422.83 immediately, calculated as follows:
Descriptions Applicant Respondent
Previous order application 9055324 dated 26/11/2024
$4,922.83
Filing Fee $500.00 Total award $5,422.83
Total payable by Applicant to Respondent
$5,422.83
2. The application by [COMPANY] is dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9059984 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing I held by phone on 26 March 2025. [NAME] represented [COMPANY] ([NAME]). I adjourned the hearing with directions for the applicant to provide further material. The hearing concluded on 31 March 2025.
Previous orders
2. On 26 November 2024, the Tribunal issued its order on [NAME]’s application to have [NAME] pay the balance of recladding costs. With reference to the relevant provisions of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) the Tribunal set out its reasons in full.
3. Matters became confused since it seemed there was no valid cross application by [NAME]. The Tribunal then issued an amended order, but then recalled it following confirmation by the registry that [NAME] had a validly lodged cross application.
4. Once I was made aware of that I recalled the later order dated 29 November and reinstated the order dated 26 November 2024.
5. [NAME]’s application was successful. The only outstanding issue on his application was his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. I have awarded him the fee in this order, his application being successful.
6. I adjourned [NAME]’s application to ensure it had the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions in full. It was that application I heard most recently.
[NAME]’s application
7. [NAME] has claimed for the cost of repairing damage it says was caused to its electrical system and fittings by the contracting firm that completed the recladding work to the units, and other associated losses.
8. Since the application was lodged the claim has been amended. [NAME] sought $3,142.80; now it seeks repair and other costs of $2,840.34 in total. Of that $1,695.50 is sought for [NAME]’s time dealing with the issue and $100.00 for spoiled refrigerator contents. So, the nub of the dispute (the actual repair costs) appears to be just $1,044.84.
9. Given the time, effort, and cost incurred by the parties to date, I suggested that they consider a settlement on a 50:50 basis. They would not agree to that. Rather, what the Tribunal heard was an entrenched dispute, and parties who fundamentally do not get along and who probably never will.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9059984 3
10.That was the Tribunal’s earlier observation as well. In its decision dated 26 November 2024 the Tribunal said:
This case illustrates what can happen with a small body corporate where one person owns a majority of the units, the other owner is a minority, and decisions are made informally and in good faith. Bodies corporate such as this one benefit from having a professional manager. The parties should consider that.
[NAME]’s claim succeed?
11.The answer to this question is no. Why? Because as the Tribunal said in its order dated 26 November 2024:
If the damage is just to [NAME]’s unit the dispute will be between [NAME] and whoever it believes caused the damage…That the Body Corporate ([NAME] on its behalf) paid [NAME]’s invoice in full should not preclude [NAME] as an individual unit owner suing for its losses, but it cannot recover those losses from [NAME] when he did not cause the damage.
12.[NAME] has made its claim against [NAME]. He did not cause any damage to [NAME]’s unit, nor did the body corporate. That addresses [NAME]’s claim in full; it cannot succeed.
13.The Tribunal is not an advisory body. [NAME] can take advice should it wish to pursue its claim for damage to its unit. Its claim will be against whomever caused the damage. That in turn will decide the forum where the dispute will be adjudicated if there is no agreement to settle.
Result
14.For the reasons given [NAME]’s application is dismissed. [NAME] cannot be awarded the filing fee as the application is unsuccessful.
[NAME] 14 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9059984 4
Please read carefully:
SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS MATTER PLEASE CONTACT UNIT TITLE SERVICES [PHONE].
MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE TARI UNIT TITLE SERVICES [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 UNIT TITLE SERVICES [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 filing fee was awarded to the respondent as their application was successful.
- The body corporate paid the respondent's invoice in full, which does not preclude the respondent from suing for individual losses.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant cannot recover losses from the respondent when the respondent did not cause the damage.
- The applicant's claim for reimbursement of costs related to damage to their electrical system was dismissed because the damage was not caused by the respondent.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for reimbursement of costs related to damage to their electrical system and fittings.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the respondent was responsible for damage to the claimant's electrical system and fittings, and whether the claimant could recover costs related to this damage.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant could not recover costs from the respondent because the damage was not caused by the respondent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's inability to prove that the damage was caused by the respondent.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have clear evidence linking the damage to the party they are claiming against.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that were considered.