Tribunal Orders Filing Fee Payment but Rejects Additional Costs
📌 In brief
In this Tenancy Tribunal case, the claimant successfully argued for the payment of the filing fee but failed to secure additional costs. The Tribunal found issues with how levies were raised and declared a conflict of interest due to the respondent's dual role as a service contractor and facilities manager.
⚖️ Legal holding
A party must incur actual costs to be eligible for cost recovery in the Tenancy Tribunal.
📖 What the law says
This section generally states that the Tenancy Tribunal cannot order one party to pay the costs of another party in a case. However, there are exceptions, such as when the case is considered trivial or annoying, or when a party was represented by a lawyer, or if the dispute should have been resolved by a mediator but one party unreasonably refused.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the filing fee but declined all other claims for costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the filing fee but declined all other claims for costs. The Tribunal found defects in how levies were raised and declared a conflict of interest due to the respondent's dual role as a service contractor and facilities manager.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9040364 1
[2025] NZTT Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau 9040364
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau
APPLICANT: [redacted] Owner of a principal unit
RESPONDENT 1: [NAME]
RESPONDENT 2: [COMPANY] [NAME] Manager
UNIT ADDRESS: Unit/Flat 26, 210-[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], [ADDRESS]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] the sum of $3,300.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence the proceedings.
2. All other claims for costs are declined.
BACKGROUND
1. As reflected in the earlier orders, the underlying dispute relates to commercial premises known as the [ADDRESS].
2. The overall complex does not have effective common property, rather the public and service areas in the complex are a separate principal unit, known as PU 1000B. Access rights and costs for operating PU 1000B are found in a land covenant, and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the [NAME] and Tenancy Tribunal.
3. [COMPANY] ([NAME]) provided services to the [NAME] as the [NAME] Manager (a service contractor), and also services to the owners of PU 1000B (in that role known as the facilities manager).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9040364 2
4. The applicant in this case is [COMPANY] ([NAME]) which is one of the principal unit owners.
5. [NAME] filed an application in the Tribunal against the [NAME] and [NAME]. The application related to various matters including:
a. How levies were determined. b. Approval for the construction of a restaurant (Milenta) on PU 1000B. c. A conflict of interest arising with [NAME].
6. The day prior to the hearing, the claim against [NAME] was withdrawn.
7. On 24 December 2024 the Tribunal issued a decision in which [NAME] were substantially successful. The order did the following
a. Found defects with how levies were raised, and ordered the levy invoices to be reissued to [NAME].
b. Declared a conflict of interest to arise with [NAME] acting as both the [NAME] manager and facilities manager, and that this conflict was not adequately managed.
8. [NAME] and [NAME] subsequently applied for costs.
[NAME] SUBMISSIONS
9. [NAME] seek costs of $16,318.50, the key points of those submissions where that:
a. [NAME] was legally represented.
b. The claim should never have been filed against [NAME] as they were no more than a service contractor, or contractor for another unit owner, but in any case there was no legal duty owned to [NAME].
[COMPANY] SUBMISSIONS
10.[NAME] on behalf of [NAME] filed submissions, seeking an order of costs to the sum of $22,800.00. In short, while [NAME] presented his company directly, it was submitted that significant time was required to prepare and prosecute the unit owners case in the Tribunal, and he should be compensated for that.
[NAME] SUBMISSIONS
11.The position of the [NAME] is that costs should lay where they fall. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the absence of a cost being incurred, an order cannot be made.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9040364 3
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
12. While this is a case under the Unit Titles Act 2010, the UTA confirms that the mechanical provisions around the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal, are those found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 102 of the RTA relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” where “any of the parties was presented by counsel”. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”
ANALYSIS
13.The Tribunal must consider an application for costs filed by [NAME] the applicant, and [NAME] a respondent.
14. In this case, two of the parties were represented by counsel, that was the [NAME] and [NAME]. That means the Tribunal “may” make an order of costs in connection with the proceeding.
15. I accept that on the face of it, [NAME] has been successful in defending the proceeding, as the application against then was withdrawn. But consideration of the order sees that the Tribunal concluded that the [NAME] has not properly administered it obligations under the UTA. I do not know what the contribution to that was from [NAME] (the professional manager), because that was not a matter before the Tribunal, and I reach no view on it.
16.However, I consider that given the Tribunal’s findings, this is a case where cost between the parties should lay where they fall (with the exception of the filing fee).
17. If there is any issue as to the legal costs incurred from [NAME], that is a matter that should be between [NAME] and the [NAME]. If those two parties cannot agree on this, then it could be the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal as a dispute between the [NAME] and a service contractor.
18.As far as the application from costs from [NAME] are concerned, certainly the Tribunal can order that the filing fee be reimbursed, that is expected in section 102(4), as the applicant been wholly successful if not substantially successful in the claim.
19.However there is no basis to order costs be paid to the applicant beyond that. [NAME] is correct in her submission that costs can only be ordered when the party has actually incurred the cost. The Tenancy Tribunal is a lay Tribunal, and for public policy reasons limits costs orders, and generally those orders are only made to reimburse costs for legal representatives or in some cases professional reports.
20.That follows the usual legal position as set out in the District Court appeal of Trenwith v Badiei [1996] DCR 9, an appeal of a Tenancy Tribunal costs decision, where Judge McElrea confirmed:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9040364 4
In normal circumstances lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs as distinct from disbursements in legal proceedings. This conventional rule was discussed and explained in a careful judgment of Thorp J as to costs in [COMPANY] v [NAME] (High Court, Auckland, CP 691191, 24 July 1992). It was there held that the Court could not allow litigants in person remuneration or recompense for their time spent attending the Court.
21.That must be the situation for [NAME]’s time and effort in prosecuting [NAME]’s claims. The only cost I can order is reimbursement of the filing fee, and that is ordered.
R Woodhouse 11 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 9040364 5
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 [NAME] 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 of $3,300.00 was paid to commence the proceedings and must be reimbursed.
- The Tribunal can order reimbursement of costs for legal representatives or professional reports.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Costs can only be ordered when the party has actually incurred the cost.
- Lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs for their time spent attending the court.
- There is no basis to order costs beyond reimbursement of the filing fee.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the filing fee but rejected all other claims for costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about how levies were determined, approval for constructing a restaurant, and a conflict of interest arising from the respondent's dual role.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to order the filing fee payment because the claimant had been successful in part of the claim, but declined additional costs as the respondent had not incurred actual costs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 102, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the respondent had not incurred actual costs, thus making them ineligible for cost recovery.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially for the person who brought the case, as the filing fee was ordered to be paid, but against them regarding additional costs.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, they might be able to recover the filing fee if they are successful in part of their claim, but they will need to prove actual costs to recover additional costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.