BODY CORPORATE 194769 v WHEATLEY AND COPSTICK [2016] NZHC 856

BODY CORPORATE 194769 v WHEATLEY AND COPSTICK [2016] NZHC 856

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, a s 74 scheme was appropriate given broad owner support and need for coordinated repairs, and the proposed scheme's terms (including funding levies across units) were a reasonable and necessary departure from the Act to achieve fairness and enforceability; accordingly the Court ordered the proposed scheme settled.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 856
Parties
First Applicant: Body Corporate 194769; Second Applicants: Lesley Anne Wheatley and Geoff Robert Copstick; First Respondents: Lesley Anne Wheatley and Geoff Robert Copstick; Second Respondents: Antonio Krstev and Sofija Krsteva
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 74 Unit Titles Act 2010 to Settle a Repair Scheme / Judgment/final
Outcome
Order settling the proposed repair scheme under s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010
Legal Topics
Scheme Under S 74 Unit Titles Act 2010, Levy Funding and Recovery, Leaky Building Remediation, Court Discretion in Settling Schemes
Property Law Unit Titles Law Building and Construction Civil Procedure Scheme Under S 74 Unit Titles Act 2010 Levy Funding and Recovery Leaky Building Remediation Court Discretion in Settling Schemes

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 194769

First Applicant

Lesley Anne Wheatley and Geoff Robert Copstick

Second Applicants

Lesley Anne Wheatley and Geoff Robert Copstick

First Respondents

Antonio Krstev and Sofija Krsteva

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 74 Unit Titles Act 2010 to Settle a Repair Scheme / Judgment/final

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building was sufficiently damaged to trigger s 74
  2. 2 Whether a court‑settled scheme under s 74 was appropriate in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the proposed scheme terms (notably funding levies across units) were fair and within the Court's discretionary power

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, a s 74 scheme was appropriate given broad owner support and need for coordinated repairs, and the proposed scheme's terms (including funding levies across units) were a reasonable and necessary departure from the Act to achieve fairness and enforceability; accordingly the Court ordered the proposed scheme settled.

Court Disposition

Order settling the proposed repair scheme under s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010

Orders

  • The proposed scheme attached to the originating application is settled and approved by the Court