BODY CORPORATE 341188 v KELLY [2014] NZHC 1454
There is a serious question to be tried that the respondents' construction caused ongoing water ingress and physical damage and that s80(1) may apply; damages are inadequate and the balance of convenience favors granting interim equitable relief tailored to preserve the status quo and prevent further harm — namely immediate remedial waterproofing, mandatory shrinkwrapping under agreed specifications, a limited stop-work order, retention of a qualified project manager, and financial security for expert costs — rather than a complete long-term stop-work order requested by applicants.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 1454
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Body Corporate 341188; Second Plaintiffs: Darren Cottingham and Michael Elliott as trustees of the Lincoln Trust; First Defendant: Stephen Robert Kelly and The Final Hargreaves Trust Company Limited; Second Defendant: Allenby Group NZ Ltd; Third Defendant: Social Impact Strategies Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Interim Injunction Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (water Ingress and Construction Dispute) / Interim Application/hearing (orders Made 26 June 2014)
- Outcome
- Interim equitable orders granted (limited mandatory and prohibitory relief) directing remedial waterproofing, shrinkwrapping, stop-work subject to exceptions, project management and security for expert costs; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunction, Mandatory Injunction, Water Ingress, Unit Titles Obligations S80, Negligence, Nuisance, Shrinkwrap Remedial Measure, Project Management on Construction Sites
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Body Corporate 341188
First Plaintiff
Darren Cottingham and Michael Elliott as trustees of the Lincoln Trust
Second Plaintiffs
Stephen Robert Kelly and The Final Hargreaves Trust Company Limited
First Defendant
Allenby Group NZ Ltd
Second Defendant
Social Impact Strategies Limited
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (water Ingress and Construction Dispute) / Interim Application/hearing (orders Made 26 June 2014)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondents' construction caused ongoing water ingress and damage
- 2 Whether s80(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 obligations apply to future development units 'in use' for construction
- 3 Whether plaintiffs have a serious question to be tried in negligence and nuisance
Ratio Decidendi
There is a serious question to be tried that the respondents' construction caused ongoing water ingress and physical damage and that s80(1) may apply; damages are inadequate and the balance of convenience favors granting interim equitable relief tailored to preserve the status quo and prevent further harm — namely immediate remedial waterproofing, mandatory shrinkwrapping under agreed specifications, a limited stop-work order, retention of a qualified project manager, and financial security for expert costs — rather than a complete long-term stop-work order requested by applicants.
Court Disposition
Interim equitable orders granted (limited mandatory and prohibitory relief) directing remedial waterproofing, shrinkwrapping, stop-work subject to exceptions, project management and security for expert costs; costs reserved.
Orders
- Respondents to urgently (by 5.00 pm 18 June 2014) undertake remedial work to temporary waterproofing to reinstate the waterproofing directed by the expert (Mr Alvey).
- Respondents to engage Scaf-Wrap to undertake shrinkwrapping programme in accordance with the quoted programme and Millic Auckland Ltd details; programme to commence toward end of week commencing 16 June and to be completed by 27 July 2014 (weather permitting), and respondents to pay contractors by due date and...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment