19 Nov 2018
The s 74 scheme of repairs is granted because the statutory and procedural prerequisites were met (service, established damage, detailed scheme consistent with precedent), the proposed apportionment and bathroom exception are equitable and supported by owners, coordinated repairs across blocks are necessary, and retrospective effect is justified by prior conduct and owner support.
30 Apr 2015
Consolidation was refused as inappropriate given multiplicity of parties, differing legal issues, lack of readiness and risk of injustice. The uncontradicted expert evidence established a substantial encroachment; the corridor walls were not load bearing and could be removed and reinstated at reasonable cost. Given Council Notice to Fix, non-compliance with the Building Code, prejudice to other unit owners and refusal of respondents to accept a substituted plan, the Court exercised its discretion to order removal of the encroaching walls under s325 Property Law Act 2007 and to order a s74 Uni…
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.