2 Sept 2022
BC 366567 established that the building was damaged, the proposed detailed scheme had broad support, was appropriately detailed, lawful and consistent with the Act (including ss 121, 126 and 138), and retrospective effect for certain costs was appropriate; accordingly the Court settled the scheme under s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010.
9 Sept 2021
There was a clear substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing and whether contracted works had been completed, therefore the statutory demand was properly set aside and the appeal dismissing that outcome must fail; standard appellate costs were ordered against the appellant.
2 Oct 2020
The court granted the application in part: plaintiffs must file an amended statement of claim providing further particulars of (1) the damage caused or to be caused by the pleaded defects and the location of that damage and a general description of the remedial solution required (not necessarily repair for each individual defect), (2) economic loss particulars including remedial cost breakdown (investigation, design, remedial works), stigma, alternative accommodation and lost rental rates/periods, lost business income basis/period/amounts, moving/storage/cleaning costs per unit, and (3) parti…
9 Sept 2017
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.
10 Oct 2014
The Court found the second defendants breached warranties in cl 6.2(5)(a) and (b) by commencing preparatory works before obtaining consents and by constructing the house not in compliance with the building consent/Building Code; because the plaintiffs were unlikely to undertake the remedial works and would instead sell the property, damages were awarded on a diminution in value basis of NZD 290,000 (after set-off for other settlement funds) plus NZD 15,000 general damages for stress and inconvenience.
1 Jul 2009
The summary judgment application was dismissed because the defendants have a reasonably arguable defence that the body corporate exceeded the authority conferred by the Scheme and because the plaintiff failed to provide adequate, timely particulars and apportionment information necessary to resolve liability on summary judgment; the extent of any liability is uncertain and cannot be decided summarily.
28 Aug 2007
Application to join additional defendants was dismissed because there was no reasonable prospect that claims against proposed defendants could be readied for the scheduled trial date and because refusal did not prejudice plaintiffs who could lead evidence of reasonable completion costs and pursue wasted expenditure claims in separate proceedings; the prior adjournment history further militated against joinder.