Body Corporate 194736 v Pala [2016] NZHC 674

Body Corporate 194736 v Pala [2016] NZHC 674

Because service complied with prior court directions, the respondents did not oppose, and the applicants filed a comprehensive memorandum justifying the relief, the Court adopted the memorandum and made the order under section 74 in terms of the applicants' paragraph 1.1.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 674
Parties
First Applicant: Body Corporate 194736; Second Applicant: Anthony Michael Zinsli; First Respondent: Ramesh Pala; First Respondent: Runuka Ben; Second Respondent: Christina Chindit Manson; Third Respondent: Andrew Nigel Kirkpatick
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Originating Application Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 / Hearing and Oral Judgment on Application (13 April 2016)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Scheme Under Section 74, Repairs, Body Corporate Governance, Service of Proceedings, Unopposed Application
Property Law Unit Titles Act 2010 Civil Procedure Scheme Under Section 74 Repairs Body Corporate Governance Service of Proceedings Unopposed Application

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 194736

First Applicant

Anthony Michael Zinsli

Second Applicant

Ramesh Pala

First Respondent

Runuka Ben

First Respondent

Christina Chindit Manson

Second Respondent

Andrew Nigel Kirkpatick

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 / Hearing and Oral Judgment on Application (13 April 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should settle a scheme under s74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 to govern repairs
  2. 2 Whether service on respondents in accordance with prior directions was sufficient
  3. 3 Whether lack of opposition by respondents permits making the orders sought

Ratio Decidendi

Because service complied with prior court directions, the respondents did not oppose, and the applicants filed a comprehensive memorandum justifying the relief, the Court adopted the memorandum and made the order under section 74 in terms of the applicants' paragraph 1.1.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order made in terms of paragraph 1.1 as moved