TANG v BODY CORPORATE 155936 [2020] NZHC 2813

TANG v BODY CORPORATE 155936 [2020] NZHC 2813

The Court dismissed the objections and confirmed the designated resolution under s215 because the applicants were not 'materially affected' such that s68 consent was required, the revaluation certificate was a mandatory mechanical step, the resolutions were within the body corporate's powers and had proportionate effect on all owners, the procedural complaints did not meet the high threshold of unjust or inequitable effect on the minority, and it was just and equitable to confirm the resolution.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 2813
Parties
First Applicants: Kim Choo Tang and Mun Ho Tang; Second Applicant: Landcorp Limited; First Respondent: Body Corporate 155936; Second Respondent: Three Lamps Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Unit Titles Act Redevelopment Objection / Judgment on Originating Application After Hearing (s215 Objection)
Outcome
Applicants' objections dismissed; designated resolution confirmed; originating application dismissed
Legal Topics
Redevelopment, Designated Resolution, Minority Relief, Levies and Funds, Body Corporate Powers, Procedural Fairness
Unit Titles Act 2010 Property Law Civil Procedure Redevelopment Designated Resolution Minority Relief Levies and Funds Body Corporate Powers +1 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Choo Tang and Mun Ho Tang

First Applicants

Landcorp Limited

Second Applicant

Body Corporate 155936

First Respondent

Three Lamps Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unit Titles Act Redevelopment Objection / Judgment on Originating Application After Hearing (s215 Objection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accumulated levies/funds could lawfully be applied to proposed improvements
  2. 2 Whether effect of ordinary and special resolutions was unjust or inequitable to the minority under s210
  3. 3 Whether it was just and equitable to confirm the designated resolution and dismiss objections under s215

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the objections and confirmed the designated resolution under s215 because the applicants were not 'materially affected' such that s68 consent was required, the revaluation certificate was a mandatory mechanical step, the resolutions were within the body corporate's powers and had proportionate effect on all owners, the procedural complaints did not meet the high threshold of unjust or inequitable effect on the minority, and it was just and equitable to confirm the resolution.

Court Disposition

Applicants' objections dismissed; designated resolution confirmed; originating application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants' objections to the designated resolution are dismissed
  • The designated resolution is confirmed