BODY CORPORATE 169774 v PEARLNZ LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3144

BODY CORPORATE 169774 v PEARLNZ LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3144

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, that the proposed scheme was appropriately adopted through the Body Corporate’s meetings and approvals, and that the scheme’s terms (including cost apportionment by utility interest and procedural mechanisms) were sufficiently detailed and consistent with established precedent; accordingly the Court settled the scheme under s74 Unit Titles Act 2010 as annexed to the application.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 3144
Parties
First Applicant: BODY CORPORATE 169774; Second Applicant: PEARLNZ LIMITED; First Respondents: CHANNA AJITH WEERASINGHE and KESHI WEERASINGHE; Second Respondents: JI YOUNG BAE and YOUN SUP BAE; Third Respondents: DAVID WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE and MING ZHU; Fourth Respondent: JIYING DUAN; Fifth Respondent: JIN ZHENG; Sixth Respondents: SAJEEV CHETTACKAL KUTTAN and SHEENA THALIYAPARAMBIL; Seventh Respondents: BARRY JAMES NORTHCOTT and CAROLINE ANNE NORTHCOTT; Eighth Respondent: MING-HUEY CHANG; Ninth Respondent: HONG YING NI; Tenth Respondents: VIVIEN FAMILY CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED and YIMING PENG and YUEBIN GENG; Eleventh Respondents: ASCO LEGAL TRUSTEES LIMITED and RICHARD SCOTT GEARY; Twelfth Respondent: DELLISSE MOLETA; Thirteenth Respondent: KUANG-YUEH CHENG; Fourteenth Respondent: HUIYAN CHENG; Fifteenth Respondents: LIN HU and TIANCHUN GAO; Sixteenth Respondents: KENNETH JOHN GRAHAM and PATRICIA MARGARET GRAHAM; Seventeenth Respondent: PHUOC THANH TRINH; Eighteenth Respondent: ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Ninetieth Respondent: ASB BANK LIMITED; Twentieth Respondent: BANK OF NEW ZEALAND; Twenty First Respondent: WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Twenty Second Respondent: IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Originating Application Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 / Formal Proof Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Order settling the scheme under section 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010
Legal Topics
Scheme Settlement Under S74, Weathertightness Remediation, Levy Apportionment, Approval of Remedial Scheme
Unit Titles Property Law Building and Construction Civil Procedure Scheme Settlement Under S74 Weathertightness Remediation Levy Apportionment Approval of Remedial Scheme

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BODY CORPORATE 169774

First Applicant

PEARLNZ LIMITED

Second Applicant

CHANNA AJITH WEERASINGHE and KESHI WEERASINGHE

First Respondents

JI YOUNG BAE and YOUN SUP BAE

Second Respondents

DAVID WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE and MING ZHU

Third Respondents

JIYING DUAN

Fourth Respondent

JIN ZHENG

Fifth Respondent

SAJEEV CHETTACKAL KUTTAN and SHEENA THALIYAPARAMBIL

Sixth Respondents

BARRY JAMES NORTHCOTT and CAROLINE ANNE NORTHCOTT

Seventh Respondents

MING-HUEY CHANG

Eighth Respondent

HONG YING NI

Ninth Respondent

VIVIEN FAMILY CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED and YIMING PENG and YUEBIN GENG

Tenth Respondents

ASCO LEGAL TRUSTEES LIMITED and RICHARD SCOTT GEARY

Eleventh Respondents

DELLISSE MOLETA

Twelfth Respondent

KUANG-YUEH CHENG

Thirteenth Respondent

HUIYAN CHENG

Fourteenth Respondent

LIN HU and TIANCHUN GAO

Fifteenth Respondents

KENNETH JOHN GRAHAM and PATRICIA MARGARET GRAHAM

Sixteenth Respondents

PHUOC THANH TRINH

Seventeenth Respondent

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Eighteenth Respondent

ASB BANK LIMITED

Ninetieth Respondent

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Twentieth Respondent

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Twenty First Respondent

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Twenty Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 / Formal Proof Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building at 2 Alpers Avenue has been damaged
  2. 2 Whether a scheme under s74 Unit Titles Act 2010 is appropriate
  3. 3 What the terms of any settled scheme should be

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, that the proposed scheme was appropriately adopted through the Body Corporate’s meetings and approvals, and that the scheme’s terms (including cost apportionment by utility interest and procedural mechanisms) were sufficiently detailed and consistent with established precedent; accordingly the Court settled the scheme under s74 Unit Titles Act 2010 as annexed to the application.

Court Disposition

Order settling the scheme under section 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010

Orders

  • Order settling the scheme for the reinstatement of the building at 2 Alpers Avenue, Epsom, Auckland as set out in Schedule 2 to the Body Corporate application