19 Feb 2020
Because owners of all nine units unanimously approved the proposed s 74 scheme and supporting documentation demonstrated the defects, remediation steps and fair cost apportionment, the Court exercised its discretion to settle the scheme pursuant to s 74 and found the minor correction did not require formal service.
14 Nov 2018
The Court found The Links was damaged and a s 74 scheme was appropriate; given the pervasive and interrelated nature of defects and that the relevant building elements (balconies, decks, external walls, cladding) relate to or serve more than one unit, apportionment of LARP and future reclad costs on a utility interest basis is fair; the scheme was settled as applied for with specified amendments to govern fund segregation, procurement advice and future levies for reclad.
8 Sept 2017
The Court held in principle that the original s74 scheme should be varied: costs for the additional fire protection works and remediation of extract risers and associated ductwork are building‑wide matters that benefit all owners and therefore should be apportioned on ownership interest (subject to adjustment for unrelated external carpark entitlements); the logic of the original scheme was rendered inapplicable by unforeseen defects and an amended scheme consistent with these findings must be prepared and resubmitted for approval.
30 Mar 2017
The applicant was afforded an opportunity to litigate and appeal the validity of the levies in the District Court and did not appeal the adverse decision; the District Court judgment is therefore final and enforceable; the later District Court decision relied on by the applicant concerned different levy types (long-term maintenance funds) and does not demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice in relation to the judgment being enforced; the application to set aside or stay was dismissed.
22 Mar 2016
The Court granted the s 74 scheme because remedial works were necessary and mistrust among owners made a formal scheme desirable; cost apportionment on an 'actual cost to each unit' basis (with common property costs by utility interest) is fair and consistent with the Act because the 2010 Act allows recovery from unit owners for repairs to building elements within their principal unit; the proposed pay-as-you-go administration under a standard contract with oversight by a contract engineer is appropriate; specific amendments were required (mandatory final audit and minimum 30 days vacant poss…
27 Aug 2015
Court concluded the buildings were damaged; a coordinated s 74 scheme was appropriate; the proposed detailed scheme, including allocation of indirect and associated costs by utility interest to address inequity and economies of scale, was fair and within permissible departures from the Act and therefore was settled pursuant to s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010.
13 Jun 2014
The Court approved the proposed s 74 scheme because the Ridge complex was indisputably damaged by weathertightness defects, the scheme was necessary to permit coordinated remediation and upfront levies, it had broad owner support, was sufficiently detailed, and its departures from the Unit Titles Act were no greater than reasonably necessary to achieve a fair outcome.
30 Apr 2014
The Court was satisfied on expert evidence that the buildings were damaged; it found a scheme appropriate given the need for comprehensive coordinated repairs and extensive consultation; the proposed draft scheme was sufficiently detailed and fair, and the justified departure from the Act to share 50% of the three end-wall repair costs across all owners was approved; the draft scheme was settled under s74.
10 Dec 2013
The court was satisfied the buildings suffered damage and remedial work as described was necessary, that the draft s74 reinstatement scheme was fair and equitable in apportioning costs, and therefore ordered establishment of the scheme in terms of the draft (with party-related amendments), struck out sold parties, joined purchasers, dispensed further service on added parties, and ordered costs accordingly.
7 Mar 2013
Because the development is damaged, the proposed draft scheme is sufficiently detailed, was reached following a robust consultative process with clear majority support for the contested departures, the financial detriment to dissenting or non‑participating owners is small, and the Tisch criteria are satisfied, the Court will settle the draft scheme under s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.