30 Oct 2015
The Court approved the s 74 reinstatement scheme because the building was demonstrably damaged, the draft scheme was appropriate and supported by evidence and a body corporate resolution, there was no opposition from respondents, and undertaking the works as a single, managed project was necessary and efficient.
13 Jul 2011
The Court approved and settled the Scheme because it was practical, convenient, cost-effective and equitably distributed repair costs; it exercised its power to dispense with service on the disestablished District Land Registrar in favour of service on the Registrar General of Land and confirmed that the Body Corporate may recover reasonable solicitor/client costs as an amount raised under s 15(2)(b).
31 May 2010
The caveat was removed because the Court found the applicant would not suffer material prejudice if the caveat was released: alleged accounting and disclosure disputes could be resolved while sale proceeds were held by a stakeholder, adequate notice had been given, and the trustee had both duty and incentive to obtain the best price.