Body Corporate 161883 v Maui Investments Limited

[2019] NZHC 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-002838

[2019] NZHC 977

BETWEEN

BODY CORPORATE 161883

Applicant

AND

MAUI INVESTMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

MAYFLOWER HOLDINGS LIMITED
Second Respondent

KIM WAI YAM and YIN PING YU YAM
Third Respondent

….2/ cont’d

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	7 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 May 2019 at 11.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Legal Vision, Auckland

BODY CORPORATE 161883 v MAUI INVESTMENTS LTD & ORS [2019] NZHC 977 [7 May 2019]

AND

VALMAINE MARIE TOKI

Fourth Respondent

CHANDRAKANT PATEL and MADHU PATEL

Fifth Respondents

FIBONACCI INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Respondent

CHRISTINE ELIZABETH VENVILLE and WILLIAM BEAU HOLLAND
Seventh Respondents

WALLIS RAYMOND HUNT and DIANA MARGARET HUNT

Eighth Respondents

KEITH PATRICK GOSLING

Ninth Respondent

TONIKIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Tenth Respondent

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Eleventh Respondent

ASB BANK LIMITED
Twelfth Respondent

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Thirteenth Respondent

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF LAND

Fourteenth Respondent

[1]                   On 11 February 2016 Woodhouse J made orders settling a Scheme of Repair pursuant to s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 on the application of Body Corporate 161883 (the Body Corporate).

[2]                   On 29 January 2019 counsel for the Body Corporate filed a memorandum seeking orders discharging the Scheme of Repair or enabling the distribution of surplus levies. The building works contemplated by the scheme were completed and a Code Compliance Certificate had issued. Unusually on the project there was a residue of surplus levies that were not utilised during the course of repairs. The Body Corporate committee resolved the fairest and most equitable manner in which to provide surplus funds was on a pro rata basis representing the share each owner had contributed to the total in mediation cost.

[3]                   The matter has been called before the Court on a number of occasions in the duty judge list.

[4]                   Most recently on the 27 March 2019, Gordon J noted that the Body Corporate had made a formal application relying on s 74(7) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. Gordon J was not satisfied that s 74(7) provided jurisdiction for the orders sought. The Judge suggested that an amended application under s 74(8) be filed and served. The Judge noted that on receipt of the amended application the duty judge may consider it would be possible to determine the application on the papers.

[5]The amended application has been filed and served on all relevant parties.

[6]                   Having reviewed the file and the material filed in support of the amended application I agree that the orders sought in the amended application are appropriate. There will be orders accordingly in terms of the amended application dated 8 April 2019.

Venning J