BODY CORPORATE 303953 v WANG [2015] NZHC 2039

BODY CORPORATE 303953 v WANG [2015] NZHC 2039

Court concluded the buildings were damaged; a coordinated s 74 scheme was appropriate; the proposed detailed scheme, including allocation of indirect and associated costs by utility interest to address inequity and economies of scale, was fair and within permissible departures from the Act and therefore was settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2039
Parties
First Applicant: Body Corporate 303953; Second Applicant: Stephen Martin Wilde; First Respondent: Tian Wang; First Respondent: Xiaonan Bao; Respondents: Other Respondents
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Unit Titles Act 2010 to Settle a S 74 Reinstatement Scheme / Application Heard at Formal Proof Hearing; Judgment Settling Scheme
Outcome
Scheme for reinstatement settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010
Legal Topics
S 74 Scheme, Cost Apportionment, Weather Tightness Remediation, Scheme Settlement, Retrospective Effect
Property Law Unit Titles Construction Law Civil Procedure S 74 Scheme Cost Apportionment Weather Tightness Remediation Scheme Settlement +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 303953

First Applicant

Stephen Martin Wilde

Second Applicant

Tian Wang

First Respondent

Xiaonan Bao

First Respondent

Other Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Unit Titles Act 2010 to Settle a S 74 Reinstatement Scheme / Application Heard at Formal Proof Hearing; Judgment Settling Scheme

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development has been damaged so as to require reinstatement
  2. 2 Whether a s 74 scheme is appropriate in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the proposed terms, including departure from default cost allocation, are fair and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Court concluded the buildings were damaged; a coordinated s 74 scheme was appropriate; the proposed detailed scheme, including allocation of indirect and associated costs by utility interest to address inequity and economies of scale, was fair and within permissible departures from the Act and therefore was settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Scheme for reinstatement settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010

Orders

  • The scheme for the reinstatement of the buildings comprising the unit property and common property in Body Corporate 303953 attached to the submissions of counsel dated 20 August 2015 is settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010
  • Correction of clause 17.2 reference from "clause 20" to "clause 19" as reflected in the settled scheme