Body Corporate 201036 v Murphy - [2017] NZHC 2974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-002150 [2017] NZHC 2974

BETWEEN
BODY CORPORATE 201036

Plaintiff

AND

CARMEL MOERANGI MURPHY Defendant

Hearing:
21 November 2017

[Further Submissions Filed 27 November 2017]

Appearances:

J P M Wood and M Ibram for the Plaintiff
No Appearance of, or for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 1 December 2017 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicit ors : Rainey Law, Auckland

BODY CORPORATE 201036 v MURPHY [2017] NZHC 2974 [1 December 2017]

[1] The Body Corporate seeks judgment in the sum of $14,537.83 plus costs and disbursements totalling $7,609.25. It has filed an application for summary judgment which was first called before me on 21 November 2017. The principal sum relates to outstanding levies owed to the Body Corporate. Ms Murphy has not filed any documents in the proceeding and has not appeared to oppose summary judgment.

[2] When the matter was called in the summary judgment list, Mr Wood explained that the proceeding had been filed in the High Court because of difficulties Mr Wood had experienced in the past in seeking a sale order to enforce a Residential Tenancies Tribunal (Tribunal) order. He submits that such difficulties may result in a six or seven-month delay for his client, which he seeks to avoid by commencing proceedings in the High Court.

[3] Under s 171 of the Unit Titles Act 2010, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a party to pay unpaid levies up to a sum of $50,000. If the jurisdiction is exclusive, then this proceeding must be dismissed and the matter pursued in the Tribunal.

[4] In Bridgewater, Associate Judge Bell held that s 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal, did not apply to its Unit Titles Act jurisdiction.1 That case concerned claims against five defendants for sums which totalled between $108,000 and $208,000. The correctness of that decision is not before this Court. I have therefore proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Unit Titles Act is not exclusive.

[5] The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters falling within the jurisdiction of another court or tribunal. That jurisdiction has been exercised in cases where the sum sought falls within the jurisdiction of the District Court. In addition, some of the individual levies which made up the totals claimed in Bridgewater fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

[6] However, the quantum sought in this case is far lower than the sums claimed in those other cases. The commencement of proceedings in this Court circumvents
the statutory jurisdiction of the Tribunal and undermines the very purpose of reposing

1 Body Corporate 324525 v Stent [2016] NZHC 2442, (2016) 18 NZCPR 176 [Bridgewater].

that jurisdiction in the Tribunal. The procedures in…

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 Body Corporate 201036 v Murphy 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: [2017] NZHC 2974
Decision Date: 1 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Body Corporate 201036 v Murphy involved the Body Corporate 201036, acting as the plaintiff, and Carmel Moerangi Murphy, the defendant. The dispute centred on the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid levies amounting to $14,537.83, along with additional costs and disbursements totalling $7,609.25. The plaintiff filed the application for summary judgment in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, on 21 November 2017, due to prior difficulties in enforcing a Residential Tenancies Tribunal (Tribunal) order through the District Court. The defendant did not appear or file any documents in opposition to the summary judgment application.

The legal issues before the court were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the plaintiff's decision to initiate proceedings in the High Court, rather than in the Tribunal, was justified. The plaintiff argued that the Tribunal's procedures could result in significant delays, potentially six to seven months, which they sought to avoid by proceeding in the High Court. The court had to determine if the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Unit Titles Act 2010 was exclusive and whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to facilitate the expeditious recovery of unpaid levies.

The court reasoned that while the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the payment of unpaid levies up to $50,000 under section 171 of the Unit Titles Act 2010, its jurisdiction was not exclusive. The court noted that the sums claimed in the present case were substantially lower than those in previous cases where the Tribunal's jurisdiction was upheld. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's decision to commence proceedings in the High Court was an abuse of process and frivolous, as it circumvented the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the intended user-friendly procedures designed by Parliament. The court also highlighted that allowing such proceedings could clog the High Court with cases that should be handled by the Tribunal. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceeding, noting that the plaintiff was free to pursue the claim in the appropriate forum without any significant prejudice.

Orders