New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scheme of repair

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2023

BODY CORPORATE 88125 v BEAVEN [2023] NZHC 3480

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3480
Court

High Court

Given that the remedial works required by the s 74 scheme were completed, a Code Compliance Certificate issued, the body corporate unanimously resolved to seek discharge, service on respondents was proved and there was no opposition, the Court discharged the s 74 scheme and ordered the 26th respondent removed from the proceeding as it was in liquidation and had been removed from the Companies Register.
2 Sept 2022

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v YANG [2022] NZHC 2240

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2240
Court

High Court

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.
6 Sept 2021

BODY CORPORATE 343200 v DUNCAN [2021] NZHC 2319

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2319
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the building was damaged, that a scheme under s 74 was appropriate, and that the proposed Scheme met the Tisch criteria (broad support, adequate detail, proper funding and single contractor/consultant, minimal departure from Act/Rules), and therefore the Scheme was approved and the orders sought were granted.
3 Feb 2021

BODY CORPORATE 314745 v WARRENER [2021] NZHC 60

Citation

[2021] NZHC 60
Court

High Court

The court found the buildings were damaged and the proposed single, detailed remedial scheme had broad owner support, was sufficiently detailed, fair in its allocation of costs by utility interest, and appropriate under s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010; accordingly the court made an order settling the scheme and ancillary orders to give effect to it.
20 Mar 2020

WESTTHORN PROPERTIES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 177519 [2020] NZHC 593

Citation

[2020] NZHC 593
Court

High Court

Although damage was established, the Court declined to settle a s74 scheme because it was unnecessary and inappropriate: the Body Corporate is actively progressing investigations and remedial steps and has sworn not to use s126; the proposed scheme would preempt owner democratic decision-making, merely replicate existing statutory duties, and a scheme is a remedy of last resort requiring broader owner support.
14 Nov 2019

BODY CORPORATE 316651 v TARM and ORS [2019] NZHC 2977

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2977
Court

High Court

Evidence established the building had significant defects and that a single, comprehensive repair programme was appropriate and economical; the proposed detailed Scheme, unanimously approved by unit owners and fair despite departing from the Act's default cost allocation, should be settled and approved under s74.
7 May 2019

BODY CORPORATE 161883 v MAUI INVESTMENTS LTD & ORS [2019] NZHC 977

Citation

[2019] NZHC 977
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the amended application under s74(8) provided the appropriate statutory basis and, having reviewed the materials, granted the orders in terms of the amended application dated 8 April 2019 to discharge the Scheme of Repair and enable distribution of the surplus levies as resolved by the Body Corporate committee.
10 Apr 2019

BODY CORPORATE 417948 v BRYANT and ORS [2019] NZHC 777

Citation

[2019] NZHC 777
Court

High Court

Applying Tisch, the Court accepted the expert evidence that the building has extensive defects requiring comprehensive remedial work for Building Code compliance; the defects affect both common and private property and cannot practicably be separated, the proposed detailed Scheme has unanimous support and is fair and minimally departs from the Act; accordingly the s 74 Scheme is appropriate and is approved, and clerical errors in party names are corrected.
2 Sept 2016

BODY CORPORATE 204299 v WHYTE AND OTHERS [2016] NZHC 2083

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2083
Court

High Court

The court refused to approve the applicants' initial scheme because treating the 20 common property walls as unit property was an unjustified departure from the Act; the agreed scheme treats those walls as common property and allocates their repair costs across all units using utility interests, thereby satisfying s 74 and warranting court approval.
17 Aug 2016

BODY CORPORATE 211974 v KIMBA HOLDINGS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1916

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1916
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied on the expert evidence that the buildings were damaged, that a common, coordinated s 74 scheme was appropriate to repair both units and common property, the proposed scheme had broad support and adequate detail, its terms were fair and consistent with the Act (including apportionment by utility interest and provision for levies in advance), and therefore the Court ordered the scheme settled as prayed.