| For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link |
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA213/2014 [2015] NZCA 185 |
| BETWEEN | BODY CORPORATE 162791 |
| AND | JOHN GILBERT |
| AND | QSM TRUSTEE LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) |
| Hearing: | 29 April 2015 |
Court: | Harrison, Keane and Wylie JJ |
Counsel: | J Anderson and T J G Allan for Appellant |
Judgment: | 21 May 2015 at 10 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appeal is allowed.
BJudgment is entered in favour of the appellant against the first respondent as receiver of the second respondent (in receivership and in liquidation). The first respondent is personally ordered to pay the body corporate levies outstanding in respect of units 3A to 3E (inclusive) in the Mid City complex, from 9 August 2013 to the date of this judgment.
CThe first respondent is personally ordered to pay interest on the outstanding levies, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, calculated from the last day of each month to the date of judgment. Interest is not to be compounded.
DLeave is reserved to counsel to file memoranda in the High Court, in the event that they are unable to reach agreement as to the amount owing by the first respondent to the appellant.
EThe first respondent is ordered to pay to the appellant its reasonable solicitor/client costs, together with disbursements.
FLeave is reserved to counsel to file memoranda in the High Court in the event that there is any disagreement as to the costs or disbursements payable pursuant to this judgment.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given byWylie J)
Introduction [1]
Factual background [8]
The Mid City Complex [8]
239 Queen Street Trustees Ltd [13]
QSM Trustee Ltd [18]
The receivership [24]
The High Court decision [26]
Submissions [29]
Analysis [31]
A receiver’s powers and liabilities [31]
The Receiverships Act 1993 – Section 32 [35]
Issues [41]
(a) Do the body corporate levies fall due under an agreement? [41]
(b) Do the levies due under the agreement relate to the use, possession
or occupation by QSMTL of the units? [50]
(c) Is Mr Gilbert entitled to relief under s 32(7)? [65]
Costs [74]
Result [80]
Introduction
Body Corporate 162791 (the body corporate) appeals a decision given in the High Court by Associate Judge Abbott on 25 March 2014.[1]
The Body Corporate initially filed a statement of claim seeking an interim injunction to restrain the first respondent, Mr Gilbert, as receiver of the second respondent, QSM Trustee Limited (QSMTL) from erecting a fence across an arcade comprising common property on level 1 of a strata title development known as the Mid City complex in central Auckland.
The application for an interim injunction was decided in the body corporate’s favour and an interim injunction was ordered on 15 April 2013.[2] The matter came back before the Court,[3] and ultimately…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] NZCA 185
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.