6 Sept 2021
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.
14 Nov 2019
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.
10 Apr 2019
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.
13 Jun 2018
The Court approved the proposed s74 repair scheme because the building suffered systemic weathertight defects requiring remediation, the proposed scheme was sufficiently detailed, enjoyed broad owner support, complied with the principles from Tisch, and the Court may properly confer the necessary powers on the body corporate to carry out repairs and levy or borrow funds to do so.
11 Apr 2018
The court was satisfied the buildings were damaged, the proposed reinstatement scheme was appropriate and sufficiently detailed, and the proposed allocation of costs was fair; accordingly the court ordered the scheme settled and approved under s74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
3 Jun 2016
Operating levies in issue were validly struck and recoverable as a debt because the disputed items either fell squarely within s115 operating expenses or constituted a legitimate long-term maintenance plan contribution distinct from remediation levies; a single bank account is permitted if funds are identifiable and there was no arguable defence warranting refusal of summary judgment.
13 Mar 2014
The Court approved the amended draft scheme attached to the applicant's memorandum dated 5 March 2014 (filed 6 March 2014) as being in accordance with the interim judgment and ordered that the costs of the application be paid in accordance with the scheme percentages in the sums of $43,569.75 and $805.00.