New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Weathertight homes tribunal

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2016

MARINA RESORT LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 170989 (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] NZHC 2831

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2831
Court

High Court

Applicant did not show a substantial defence to the statutory demand because a member cannot simply refuse to pay a levy imposed to meet a valid costs order of the body corporate; to avoid payment the applicant must first obtain judgment setting aside the costs order or valid relief via the appropriate dispute or equitable processes, which was unlikely on the facts; accordingly the statutory demand was properly maintained and must not be set aside.
12 Jun 2014

LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2014] NZHC 1317

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1317
Court

High Court

Court categorised the proceedings as category 2, Band B, applied the $1,990 daily recovery rate with time allowances totalling $6,069.50, allowed an uplift of 25% (not the 75% sought) because the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increased costs but did not justify indemnity or a higher uplift, and therefore awarded scale costs with the uplift to the first and fourth respondents and actual costs to the third respondent together with specified disbursements; travel costs claimed by the first respondent were declined.
19 Jun 2012

CHAPMAN V WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL HC AK CIV 2011-404-3822

Citation

openlaw-5e0c14d6_e1f0_4cae_b261_68531fc93c03.pdf
Court

High Court

The claim as pleaded could not be characterised as a provable debt at the time of Chapman’s adjudication or discharge because the cause of action for the alleged negligent building work had not accrued (was not reasonably discoverable) before discharge; accordingly the Tribunal did not err in refusing removal and judicial review is dismissed.
17 Jul 2009

HOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LTD V REES HC AK CIV 2006-404-004219

Citation

openlaw-d4af0141_453c_4f3b_aad4_4b079853bb76.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Court of Appeal (and Supreme Court on leave) ruled that the District Court judgment was final for s19(1)(d) and that counterclaims/set-offs excluded by the Construction Contracts Act scheme cannot be relied on to set aside a bankruptcy notice, and because there was no evidential foundation to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to achieve an outcome contrary to statute, the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

MARINA RESORT LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 170989 (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] NZHC 2831

LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2014] NZHC 1317

CHAPMAN V WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL HC AK CIV 2011-404-3822

HOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LTD V REES HC AK CIV 2006-404-004219