Body Corporate 211438 v Crozier

[2017] NZHC 201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-003273

[2017] NZHC 201

BETWEEN

BODY CORPORATE 211438

First Applicant

GRAEME ASHLEY MIDDLETON
Second Applicant

AND

DAVID ADAM CROZIER

First Respondent

... cont

Hearing:	15 February 2017
Appearances:	I J Stephenson for Applicants No Appearance for Respondents
Judgment:	20 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 20 February 2017 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

BODY CORPORATE 211438 v CROZIER & ORS [2017] NZHC 201 [20 February 2017]

MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland ([email protected])

AND  PEI SUM YEW

Second Respondent

MINA IYAMA

Third Respondent

MICHAEL HUGH FARQUHARSON
Fourth Respondent

SAVANTHI VARANGANIE JAYAWICKREMA

Fifth Respondent

DALLAS JOSHUA STEPHEN

Sixth Respondent

XIAOMING LIU
Seventh Respondent

JAMES MARK CORBETT
Eighth Respondent

YVONNE TAY
Ninth Respondent

MEI DING AMY CHARK

Tenth Respondent

PAK YAM JASON CHIU
Eleventh Respondent

WAI LAM BRIAN CHIU
Twelfth Respondent

SALMA RASHEED-HISCOKE
Thirteenth Respondent

KASSETS L IMITED
Fourteenth Respondent

TONY AH-THIT PAYNE
Fifteenth Respondent

JULIE ADELAIDE BLACKER
Sixteenth Respondent

HAMILTON GORDON LAUGHLAND

Seventeenth Respondent

SALLY JANE MILLER (FORMERLY SALLY JANE SAUNDERS)

Eighteenth Respondent

NICOLA RUTH ENDEAN
Nineteenth Respondent

PETER BRENT FLEMING
Twentieth Respondent

ROBYN ANN FLEMMING
Twenty First Respondent

VALERIS LIMITED

Twenty Second Respondent

CATHERINE ELIZABETH MILLER
Twenty Third Respondent

DENISE MARIE POND
Twenty Fourth Respondent

WINSTON JAMES POND
Twenty Fifth Respondent

JOANNE LENORE SORENSON

Twenty Sixth Respondent

DANIL LEH CHAU SOH

Twenty Seventh Respondent

YEE YANG LEE
Twenty Eighth Respondent

BRENT KENNETH DALY
Twenty Ninth Respondent

JACQUELINE NANCY RALPH
Thirtieth Respondent

KEITH VERNON RALPH
Thirty First Respondent

JENNIFER ANN BARKER
Thirty Second Respondent

MICHAEL JOHN BARKER

Thirty Third Respondent

HUASHENG HUANG

Thirty Fourth Respondent

LU LIANG
Thirty Fifth Respondent

SHUYUAN HU
Thirty Sixth Respondent

JI YOUNG PARK
Thirty Seventh Respondent

HOI CHENG MAK

Thirty Eighth Respondent

HOI LAM MAK
Thirty Ninth Respondent

SU-ANN MIDDLETON
Fortieth Respondent

DUANE CRAIG TREMBATH
Forty First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED

Forty Second Respondent

B W RENTALS LIMITED
Forty Third Respondent

ASB BANK LIMITED
Forty Fourth Respondent

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Forty Fifth Respondent

MORGAGE HOLDING TRUST COMPANY LIMITED

Forty Sixth Respondent

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Forty Seventh Respondent

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED

Forty Eighth Respondent

ACE INSURANCE LIMITED

Forty Ninth Respondent

YONGFU HUANG

Fiftieth Respondent

DEAN PHILIP SAUNDERS
Fifty First Respondent

[1]    The applicants seek final substantive orders settling a remediation scheme under s 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 for 955 Mount Eden Road, Three Kings, Auckland, known as Eden Gardens.

[2]    On 3 August 2016 the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service issued a report confirming Eden Gardens is damaged and requires a full re-clad.

[3]    The owners engaged advisers to prepare a design for remediation. A draft scheme was approved without opposition at a general meeting on 27 September 2016. It is unopposed.

[4]    The Court of Appeal has set out a three step process for considering an application to settle such a scheme.1 In accordance with those steps:

(a)I am satisfied Eden Gardens has been damaged, in accordance with the affidavit evidence of Nicholas Batchelor, Building Surveyor.

(b)I consider the proposed reinstatement scheme, including the levy calculation methodology to reflect owners’ benefit, is appropriate in the circumstances.

(c)I approve the terms of the scheme as proposed by the applicants, to be departed from no more than is necessary.

[5]I order the settling of the scheme sought by the applicants.

Palmer J

1      Tisch v Body Corporate 318596 & Ors [2011] NZCA 420, [2011] 3 NZLR 697 at [35].