Body Corporate 207650 v Speck

[2016] NZHC 1826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-003079 [2016] NZHC 1826

UNDER

s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010

IN THE MATTER

approving a scheme for payment of remedial works

BETWEEN

BODY CORPORATE 207650
Applicant

AND

KATY SPECK AND RYAN SPECK First Respondents

JILLIAN HOWARD AND GARY STEVENSON

Second Respondents

… continued

Hearing:	8 August 2016
Appearances:	A K Hayward for Applicant No appearance for Respondents
Judgment:	8 August 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Holland Beckett, Tauranga

BODY CORPORATE 207650 v SPECK & ORS [2016] NZHC 1826 [8 August 2016]

FRANCIS MCKEAN Third Respondent

RUDRAKAGENDRAN SIVAPALAN AND POLIMA RUDRAKAGENDRAN Fourth Respondents

WAYNE PATRICK VAN EYSSEN AND NATASHA ANN VAN EYSSEN; JAMES PETER COSSLETT AND ANTIONETTE MARIA COSSLETT

Fifth Respondents

BACHAR EL-KHATIB AND NAWAR ALWESH

Sixth Respondents

KARUNA CHAWLA AND SAMIR CHAWLA

Seventh Respondents

LEWELLYN NAIDOO AND VALERIE NAIDOO

Eighth Respondents

MOHAMMED KHAN AND ASHRAF KHAN

Ninth Respondent

STEPHEN TELFER Tenth Respondent

FAQIANG WANG AND BING LIANG Eleventh Respondent

ZOE FROST AND ROB FROST Twelfth Respondent

EDITH BALUYUT AND ARMANDO BALUYUT

Thirteenth Respondent

HENRY CHESTER FERALES DELA CRUZ

Fourteenth Respondent

DAO HUNG LY AND NHI MAI CHU Fifteenth Respondent

CHERYL SINGH Sixteenth Respondent

YOON CHEE AND MAY CHENG Seventeenth Respondent

YUNZHEN YI Eighteenth Respondent

VIKRANT CHAUDHARY Ninteenth Respondent

KWAI YIU LINDA LAM AND KWAI YING JUDY LAM

Twentieth Respondent

EDWARD LINTON Twenty-first Respondent

MARK IJSSELDIJK Twenty-second Respondent

MARY GILDER
Twenty-third Respondent

GURBACHAN SINGH AND INDERPREET KAUR

Twenty-fourth Respondent

KAHUERA NEPIA AND SHARON NEPIA

Twenty-fifth Respondent

JENNIFER RADONICH AND AGNES RADONICH

Twenty-sixth Respondent

GEORGE DONNOLLY AND AMY COLE Twenty-seventh Respondent

LEELA NAIDU
Twenty-eighth Respondent

CHANG CHEN AND JING ZOU Twenty-ninth Respondent

ESTHA SIMPSON AND EDWARD SIMPSON

Thirtieth Respondent

ALEXANDER JOHN ISAAC AND PAMELA ANN ISAAC AND LANCELOT GAMBIER PARKER

Thirty-first Respondent

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Thirty-second Respondent

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Thirty-third Respondent

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Thirty-fourth Respondent

ASB BANK LIMITED Thirty-fifth Respondent

MORTGAGE HOLDING TRUST COMPANY LIMITED

Thirty-sixth Respondent

TSB BANK LIMITED Thirty-seventh Respondent

[1]      This is an application by the Body Corporate for an order pursuant to s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 settling a scheme for the repair of an apartment building known as ‘Richmond Terraces’ in Flatbush, Manukau.   The respondents are the owners of units in the building.

[2]      The application and supporting affidavit have been served on all of the respondents.  No notice of opposition has been filed by any party and there was no appearance today in opposition to the application.

[3]      In around 2009, the Body Corporate discovered that the building was not weathertight.   The building requires significant remedial works including the replacement of all exterior cladding, decayed timber wall framing to exterior walls and inter-tenancy walls, internal partitions, roofs and floors.  The estimated cost of the works is approximately $5 million.

[4]      The Body Corporate has insufficient funds to meet the cost of the works. The works need to be carried out in a coordinated way at the same time and to the same standard.  In 2013, the Body Corporate reached a confidential settlement with other parties and the monies received from the settlement will be used to offset the costs of the remedial works.

[5]      At the Annual General Meeting of the Body Corporate held on 18 February

2015, those present or voting by proxy unanimously approved a proposal to make this application to the Court sanctioning a scheme that will allocate the costs of the remedial works according to the cost of repairing each unit as determined by a quantity surveyor.   The scheme will therefore reflect the differences between end units and inner units.   These differ in size and the end walls, which require extra work, are owned by the owners of the end units.

[6]      I am satisfied that the scheme is necessary, is sufficiently detailed and departs from the Act and the Body Corporate Rules no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve a fair outcome between the unit owners.   Taking into account the broad support for the scheme and the fact that there is no opposition to it, I make an order

sanctioning the scheme in terms of the application.

M A Gilbert J