New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Special levies

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2021

MEMELINK v BODY CORPORATE 68792 [2021] NZCA 640

Citation

[2021] NZCA 640
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the High Court did not err: the plaintiffs’ delay in prosecuting a challenge to historical levies was inordinate and inexcusable, the passage of time and incomplete records documented in the Deloitte review caused serious prejudice to the Body Corporate’s ability to defend, and on that basis striking out the proceedings was within judicial discretion and in the interests of justice.
25 May 2020

KNIGHT v BODY CORPORATE 81340 [2020] NZHC 1111 .

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1111
Court

High Court

The s 74 scheme, when read as a whole including its preamble and clauses 1.2, 3.3 and 10.2, retrospectively validated the costs and special levies raised in 2015 and 2016 (including projected costs forming part of the LARP), so there was no arguable defence and summary judgment for the Body Corporate was properly entered; interest and reasonable collection costs are recoverable on those validated levies.
3 Jul 2019

BODY CORPORATE 207650 v CHERYL SITARA SINGH [2019] NZHC 1547

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1547
Court

High Court

Application to halt adjudication dismissed and adjudication ordered because the purported sale was not unconditional and unreliable, debtor had little real equity, delay and repeated litigation had been protracted and oppressive, and the balance of interests and public interest required adjudication rather than further delay.
20 Dec 2016

BUTCHER v BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2016] NZHC 3128

Citation

(2016) 17 NZCPR 708
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' attempt to relitigate the core vires question by relying on the subsequent Butcher consent was an abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson) and the consent was, in any event, neither credible nor cogent; unpaid levies barred the plaintiffs (except Stent for EEGM) from voting under mandatory s 96(3) so the challenged resolutions were valid; the only declaration granted was that the AGM audit‑dispensing resolution was invalid insofar as it purported to dispense with audits for future accounting periods; s 210 relief was refused for lack of standing/vote and on merits.
7 Jul 2008

WHARE CORPORATION LIMITED V BODY CORPORATE 206552 HC AK CIV 2007-404-006500

Citation

openlaw-b26f1e69_02f1_408e_bb99_8b3c7f6d73e8.pdf
Court

High Court

No common law duty of care existed requiring the Body Corporate to ensure the s 36 certificate was correct beyond the statutory scope; s 36 did not require disclosure of the matters sought by the appellant except the general nature of any act incurring liability (here only the fact that legal advice was sought and any liability would be limited to those costs); statements by the building manager were outside the Body Corporate's authority and did not expose the Body Corporate to liability under the Fair Trading Act; appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

MEMELINK v BODY CORPORATE 68792 [2021] NZCA 640

KNIGHT v BODY CORPORATE 81340 [2020] NZHC 1111 .

BODY CORPORATE 207650 v CHERYL SITARA SINGH [2019] NZHC 1547

BUTCHER v BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2016] NZHC 3128

WHARE CORPORATION LIMITED V BODY CORPORATE 206552 HC AK CIV 2007-404-006500