Legal Research
Cases
Black v Body Corporate 125491

Black v Body Corporate 125491

Link copied

Case Copied 22 August 2025 42 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-39

[2025] NZHC 2401

UNDER Parts 18 and 30 of the High Court Rules 2016 and the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

a judicial review of a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act 2010

BETWEEN

MICHAEL CARSON BLACK

Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 125491

Respondent

Hearing: 15 July 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person

J P Wood for Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 August 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors:
Court One, Auckland

BLACK v BODY CORPORATE 125491 [2025] NZHC 2401 [22 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Body Corporate 125491 (the body corporate) to strike out proceedings brought by Mr Michael Black, a long-standing unit owner in the Waterloo Towers complex.

[2] Mr Black challenges a series of decisions made by the body corporate regarding the management and expenditure of special levies for remedial works, alleging breaches of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (Act), the relevant regulations, and equitable duties. The body corporate, in turn, seeks to have the claims struck out on the grounds of delay, futility of relief, and lack of a tenable cause of action.

Issues

[3]The issues for determination are:

(a)Untenable: Whether the applicant’s claim discloses a tenable cause of action.

(b)Futile: Whether the relief sought is futile — in particular, whether any remedy could be granted that would have practical effect, given the collective nature of body corporate decision-making and the financial arrangements in question.

(c)Delay: Whether the application for judicial review has been brought promptly and, if not, whether any delay is excusable in the circumstances.

(d)Suitability of judicial review: Whether the factual and legal context, including alleged deficiencies in the body corporate’s records, precludes summary determination.

Facts

[4] Mr Black has owned unit 1 in the Waterloo Towers complex for 33 years. The complex comprises 14 units and was completed in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

[5] From 2010 to 2021, the body corporate undertook maintenance funded by levies for a rolling 10-year maintenance plan, reviewed at each annual general meeting (AGM) until 2020. In 2019, a major roof failure led to significant water damage. The body corporate developed a repair plan, but progress stalled in late 2020 when Mr Black objected to the way levies were raised.

[6] Until 2021, the body corporate was run informally, with no elected committee and tasks delegated among members. The body corporate’s finances were managed by an accountancy firm, which acted as de facto manager, collecting levies and arranging meetings.

[7] At an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on 11 March 2021, the body corporate regularised matters by electing a committee, retrospectively authorising previous decisions, approving comprehensive building remediation works and resolving to raise a special levy of $8,064,189 payable by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Black v Body Corporate 125491 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2401
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Body Corporate 125491 applied to strike out proceedings brought by Mr Michael Black, who challenges a series of decisions made by the body corporate regarding the management and expenditure of special levies for remedial works. The body corporate sought to have the claims struck out on the grounds of delay, futility of relief, and lack of a tenable cause of action. The court found that the second amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action. The claim was based on Mr Black's frustration about the amount spent on the remediation project with little progress or benefit to him. However, the Act required costs to be levied in accordance with s 121, and the court could not override those statutory provisions based on substantive unfairness. The proceedings were futile, as the court would not grant the remedies Mr Black sought of compensation at the expense of other owners and not himself. Delay was also a relevant discretionary factor, as Mr Black sought to challenge the payment of invoices spanning back to 2010. The disputed issues that Mr Black wished to pursue and the procedures he sought to utilise were not within the proper scope of judicial review. The other pleaded causes of action took matters no further. The court struck out the second amended statement of claim and dismissed the proceeding. The body corporate was entitled to costs.

Orders