BC 198694 v McKinnon & Ors [2023] NZHC 3399

BC 198694 v McKinnon & Ors [2023] NZHC 3399

The development is damaged; a comprehensive scheme under s74 is appropriate in the best interests of unit owners to ensure effective remediation; the proposed scheme is appropriately detailed and broadly supported and does not depart from the Act or rules more than reasonably necessary; accordingly the Court orders settlement of the proposed scheme dated 19 September 2023.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 3399
Parties
First Applicant: Body Corporate 198694; Second Applicant: Branden Wayne Frankland; Second Applicant: Courtney Estelle Good; First Respondent: Philippa Jan McKinnon; Second Respondent: Colin Coetzee; Third Respondent: Abdul Vaseem Khaja; Fourth Respondent: Martin Richard Behnke; Fifth Respondent: Hai Lan and Qiusong Liu; Sixth Respondent: Anna Christina Dokter; Seventh Respondent: Twidle Property Limited; Eighth Respondent: Nigel David Hammond; Ninth Respondent: Josephine Louise Britton; Tenth Respondent: Melissa Jean Free; Eleventh Respondent: John Kevin Wardrope; Twelfth Respondents: Rui Guo and Qi Qi; Thirteenth Respondent: Nicole Patrice Bowie; Fourteenth Respondents: Kevin William Judge and Anneellen Judge; Fifteenth Respondent: Fung Yee Judy Tang; Sixteenth Respondents: Paul Andreas Hoeps and Birgit Carolin Doris Ehlers-Hoeps; Seventeenth Respondent: Joe Campbell; Eighteenth Respondents: Michael Sang-Eon Park and Minjong Kim; Nineteenth Respondent: Sara Anders Marychurch; Twentieth Respondents: Tarun Kundandas Joukani and Chanda Tarun Joukani; Twenty First Respondent: ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited; Twenty Second Respondent: ASB Bank Limited; Twenty Third Respondent: Bank of New Zealand; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Westpac New Zealand Limited; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Kiwibank Limited; Twenty Sixth Respondent: AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Application Under Unit Titles Act 2010 S74 / Judgment Approving Scheme
Outcome
Scheme settled and approved pursuant to s74 Unit Titles Act 2010
Legal Topics
Scheme Approval, Remediation, Cost Allocation, Access and Possession, Dispute Resolution
Property Law Unit Titles Act Construction Law Building Defects Civil Procedure Scheme Approval Remediation Cost Allocation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 198694

First Applicant

Branden Wayne Frankland

Second Applicant

Courtney Estelle Good

Second Applicant

Philippa Jan McKinnon

First Respondent

Colin Coetzee

Second Respondent

Abdul Vaseem Khaja

Third Respondent

Martin Richard Behnke

Fourth Respondent

Hai Lan and Qiusong Liu

Fifth Respondent

Anna Christina Dokter

Sixth Respondent

Twidle Property Limited

Seventh Respondent

Nigel David Hammond

Eighth Respondent

Josephine Louise Britton

Ninth Respondent

Melissa Jean Free

Tenth Respondent

John Kevin Wardrope

Eleventh Respondent

Rui Guo and Qi Qi

Twelfth Respondents

Nicole Patrice Bowie

Thirteenth Respondent

Kevin William Judge and Anneellen Judge

Fourteenth Respondents

Fung Yee Judy Tang

Fifteenth Respondent

Paul Andreas Hoeps and Birgit Carolin Doris Ehlers-Hoeps

Sixteenth Respondents

Joe Campbell

Seventeenth Respondent

Michael Sang-Eon Park and Minjong Kim

Eighteenth Respondents

Sara Anders Marychurch

Nineteenth Respondent

Tarun Kundandas Joukani and Chanda Tarun Joukani

Twentieth Respondents

ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited

Twenty First Respondent

ASB Bank Limited

Twenty Second Respondent

Bank of New Zealand

Twenty Third Respondent

Westpac New Zealand Limited

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Kiwibank Limited

Twenty Fifth Respondent

AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Unit Titles Act 2010 S74 / Judgment Approving Scheme

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development has been damaged or destroyed within s74
  2. 2 Whether it is appropriate to settle a scheme under s74
  3. 3 What terms are necessary in a scheme to facilitate remediation including access, timing, cost apportionment, reporting and dispute resolution

Ratio Decidendi

The development is damaged; a comprehensive scheme under s74 is appropriate in the best interests of unit owners to ensure effective remediation; the proposed scheme is appropriately detailed and broadly supported and does not depart from the Act or rules more than reasonably necessary; accordingly the Court orders settlement of the proposed scheme dated 19 September 2023.

Court Disposition

Scheme settled and approved pursuant to s74 Unit Titles Act 2010

Orders

  • Order settling the scheme attached to the body corporate's application dated 19 September 2023
  • No order as to costs