New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dissolution of body corporate

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2023

BODY CORPORATE 128255 (COWAN STREET) v WALDEN-JONES [2023] NZHC 2223

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2223
Court

High Court

Because the unit owners, mortgagees and insurer were aligned that remediation was uneconomic and unanimously voted to cancel the unit plan, and no party opposed the application, it was just and equitable under s188(2) UTA to dissolve Body Corporate 128255 and cancel Unit Plan 128255; consequential orders under s188(3) and s189(5)(aa) UTA and an order under s339(1)(a) PLA permitting sale of the base land on agreed terms with prescribed distribution of proceeds were therefore appropriate.
3 Oct 2022

RE BODY CORPORATE 39826 [2022] NZHC 2518

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2518
Court

High Court

The Court authorised cancellation of Unit Plan 39826 as just and equitable: the special resolution was validly passed and notice requirements met; distribution by sale of the freehold with apportionment based on a registered valuer and the amended allocation excluding Unit J from Body Corporate refurbishment funds is fair; sale by tender is ordered; leave reserved for owners to apply within 15 working days if material inequity is identified.
12 Oct 2021

BODY CORPORATE 368694 [2021] NZHC 2731

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2731
Court

High Court

Given overwhelming owner support, a purchaser offer materially above individual unit market value, the avoidance of significant levies, renovation costs and trading losses, full protection of creditors from sale proceeds, and mechanisms to protect minority owners (funds held in trust pending completion of formalities), it is just and equitable to authorise cancellation of Unit Plan 368694, surrender of registered leases, and consequential orders under the Property Law Act to enable sale and transfer to the purchaser; Registrar authorised to sign necessary documents.
8 Jul 2020

SYNERGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v MEMELINK [2020] NZHC 1615

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1615
Court

High Court

Memelink did not have authority to act for the Trust in seeking costs because trustee unanimity was not shown and the purported replacement trustee's appointment could not be established; s248 Companies Act 1993 did not automatically stay a costs claim against a trustee company in its capacity as trustee where any liability would be payable from trust assets and liquidator steps into trusteeship; overall, although the presumption in r15.23 was displaced given the conduct and circumstances, it was not just to award costs to the applicants and the appropriate outcome was that costs lie where th…
30 Apr 2019

BODY CORPORATE 46051 [2019] NZHC 922

Citation

[2019] NZHC 922
Court

High Court

The Court authorised cancellation and dissolution because the Body Corporate demonstrated overwhelming democratic support for sale, credible evidence of increasing defaults and unsustainable costs, statutory notice and objection procedures were followed, and the Chapmans failed to establish any serious irregularity or prejudice sufficient to render cancellation unjust or inequitable.
18 Dec 2015

BODY CORPORATE 44426 [2015] NZHC 3284

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3284
Court

High Court

The Court authorised cancellation because statutory prerequisites and service obligations in s187 were satisfied, the majority of active owners supported sale, diligent efforts to locate absent owners were made, no opposition was raised, and having regard to the interests of creditors and persons with registered interests the Court concluded it was just and equitable under s188(2).
17 Jul 2014

LAKE HAYES PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v PETHERBRIDGE [2014] NZHC 1673

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 590
Court

High Court

The Court authorised cancellation of the unit plan because the body corporate was effectively defunct and the units were past economic life making redevelopment necessary; having found the parties deadlocked and that sale or purchase was necessary, the Court exercised its s339 discretion to require the majority co-owner to purchase the minority 9.15% share for $274,500 (an above-market but agreed commercial sum) and to pay 9.15% of any excess if the property sells within 12 months for over $3,000,000; ancillary compensation beyond fair market price under s343 was not ordered.
24 Jul 2013

MILLS v BODY CORPORATE 47522 [2013] NZHC 1854

Citation

MILLS v BODY CORPORATE 47522 [2013] NZHC 1854
Court

High Court

The Court held cancellation of Unit Plan 47522 was just and equitable given demolition of buildings, proper service and absence of opposition, and ordered that insurance proceeds and net sale proceeds be distributed according to the pre-existing unit entitlements on Deposited Plan 47522.