New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Levy apportionment

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

MCINTYRE v BODY CORPORATE 80146 [2023] NZHC 3701

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3701
Court

High Court

The designated resolution was overturned because there were material procedural defects (omission from postal voting material, inconsistent and inadequate minutes, failure to approve a method of apportionment or to assign new interests as required by s41) such that it did not comply with statutory requirements for reassessing utility interests; under s215 the court was satisfied it was just and equitable to overturn the designated resolution and ordered the Body Corporate to obtain valuation reports and update registered ownership interests by a registered valuer.
27 Nov 2020

BODY CORPORATE 169774 v PEARLNZ LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3144

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3144
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, that the proposed scheme was appropriately adopted through the Body Corporate’s meetings and approvals, and that the scheme’s terms (including cost apportionment by utility interest and procedural mechanisms) were sufficiently detailed and consistent with established precedent; accordingly the Court settled the scheme under s74 Unit Titles Act 2010 as annexed to the application.
9 Sept 2017

Body Corporate 184013 Application to settle scheme for remediation [2017] NZHC 2194

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2194
Court

High Court

Evidence established weathertightness defects and non‑compliance with the Building Code; the scheme was appropriate because it had broad owner support, sufficient detail, allowed uniform remediation to the same standard and timing, and levying by utility interests was fair; accordingly the Court exercised s74 power to settle the scheme as proposed subject to a clarifying amendment on levy wording.
6 Mar 2015

BODY CORPORATE 208203 v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 378

Citation

[2015] NZHC 378
Court

High Court

The Court approved and settled the proposed scheme because the buildings suffered significant weathertightness damage triggering s74 and the body corporate's statutory duty under s138; the scheme was necessary to effect comprehensive repairs, was sufficiently detailed, properly served interested parties, had overwhelming owner support, and its apportionment and limited departures from the Act were fair in the circumstances.
7 Aug 2014

McCULLAGH v KHEAN [2014] NZHC 1873

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1873
Court

High Court

The existing unit title structure was found to be unworkable and incapable of enabling necessary remediation; the proposed new orthodox unit plan and associated orders were fair and likely to work; accordingly orders 1.1 to 1.35 of the application dated 21 May 2014 are made with a modification to 1.34 permitting interested parties leave to apply until registration; because two unit owners may still respond the orders will lie in Court and not take effect until 21 August 2014.
26 Apr 2012

BODY CORPORATE 198245 V WONG AN CHONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-7992

Citation

openlaw-4f2fe23e_244e_4669_89ee_2ac659935f8e.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants failed to demonstrate specific grounds to believe relevant undiscovered documents exist in five of the six claimed categories; Maltbys' and Alexander & Co materials had been discovered and no revision schedules were shown to exist; however the Body Corporate must disclose whether its books of account contain transactions relating to Sinking Fund use for the repairs and whether there are minute resolutions authorising such use — limited discovery ordered accordingly and leave under r 7.18 granted.

New Zealand Case Law

MCINTYRE v BODY CORPORATE 80146 [2023] NZHC 3701

BODY CORPORATE 169774 v PEARLNZ LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3144

Body Corporate 184013 Application to settle scheme for remediation [2017] NZHC 2194

BODY CORPORATE 208203 v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 378

McCULLAGH v KHEAN [2014] NZHC 1873

BODY CORPORATE 198245 V WONG AN CHONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-7992