New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Body corporate powers and delegation

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2017

BODY CORPORATE 324525 v STENT [2017] NZHC 2857

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2857
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Bell held on summary judgment that the Body Corporate was entitled to judgment for unpaid levies SL4, SL6 and SL7 against the second to fifth defendants and for SL7 against the first defendant; SL1 and the claim for 'other fees' were struck out (SL1 because judgment already obtained elsewhere and other fees insufficiently pleaded); summary judgment for SL8 was dismissed for inadequate proof of a properly passed committee resolution; defendants' ultra vires and tort (harmful publicity, negligence, injurious falsehood, Fair Trading) defences and equitable set-off arguments were…
20 Sept 2017

BUTCHER AND ORS V BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2018] NZCA 19

Citation

[2018] NZCA 19
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the central issue — whether the Origin‑recommended remedial works fell within the Body Corporate's powers under s138 — had been finally determined against the appellants in prior Wheeldon litigation so re‑litigation was barred by issue estoppel and abuse of process; the Butcher consent was neither cogent nor relevant to the building‑wide remediation; s96 lawfully prevented voting by owners who had not paid levies; and the Committee validly exercised delegated authority so no further special resolution was required.
7 Jun 2016

WHEELDON AND ORS V BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2016] NZCA 247

Citation

(2016) 17 NZCPR 353
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 imposes the primary duty on a body corporate to repair and maintain building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than one unit (including where common property is affected); whether s 138(1)(d) is engaged is a factual inquiry into whether the element 'relates to' other units; on the facts the northern panels and the level two and three decks so relate and the Body Corporate was validly authorised by the EGM/AGM process to appoint a lead consultant and proceed; the onus was on appellants to establish s 138(1)(d) was not engaged…
18 Dec 2014

BODY CORPORATE 345866 and ANOR v RUSSMORR LTD [2014] NZHC 3323

Citation

(2014) 16 NZCPR 213
Court

High Court

The secretary lacked authority (actual, apparent or ostensible) to bind the body corporate to the Russmorr guarantee; the guarantee was therefore invalid and unenforceable as against the body corporate, estoppel could not validate an unlawful/unauthorised guarantee given Russmorr's and AML's knowledge of the lack of authority, but the Russsmorr-AML lease (separate from the invalid guarantee) remains valid and enforceable and the earlier Buffalo lease was effectively surrendered by conduct and replaced by the registered Russmorr lease.

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 324525 v STENT [2017] NZHC 2857

BUTCHER AND ORS V BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2018] NZCA 19

WHEELDON AND ORS V BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2016] NZCA 247

BODY CORPORATE 345866 and ANOR v RUSSMORR LTD [2014] NZHC 3323