Body Corporate 88125 v Beaven

Case

[2023] NZHC 3480

1 December 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2022-419-000281

[2023] NZHC 3480

UNDER the Unit Titles Act 2010

IN THE MATTER OF

a scheme of repair for Body Corporate 88125

BETWEEN

BODY CORPORATE 88125

Applicant

AND

ROSS ANTHONY BEAVEN

First Respondent

JAY TAY LIMITED
Second Respondent

BRENTWOOD HOTEL LIMITED

Third Respondent

(intituling cont’d over page)

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

T Braun and J Perry for the Applicant

Judgment:

1 December 2023


JUDGMENT OF WALKER J


This judgment was delivered by me on 01 December 2023 at 2.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Braun Bond & Lomas Ltd, Hamilton.

BODY CORPORATE 88125 v BEAVEN [2023] NZHC 3480 [1 December 2023]

NIGHTSHADE COMPANY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

MD & K LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

HEYMISH LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

MOUNTAIN HIGH INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Seventh Respondent

PETER JAMES CLEMENS

Eighth Respondent

LEE MONNA 2007 LIMITED

Ninth Respondent

NEW IMAGE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Tenth Respondent

LEONIDAS INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Eleventh Respondent

MULQUEEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Twelfth Respondent

MAHAN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED

Thirteenth Respondent

PAUL LEONARD McSHEFFREY

Fourteenth Respondent

POTENZA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Fifteenth Respondent

SHIVALI INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Sixteenth Respondent

IAN DARENEEL and HELEN MARGARET DARNELL

Seventeenth Respondent

WARD GR LIMITED

Eighteenth Respondent

SUNNY BAY TRADING LIMITED

Nineteenth Respondent

RIVERVIEW PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED

Twentieth Respondent

ADDSN GROUP LIMITED
Twenty-first Respondent

ASB BANK LIMITED
Twenty-second Respondent

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Twenty-third Respondent

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED
Twenty-fourth Respondent

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
Twenty-fifth Respondent

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED
Twenty-sixth Respondent

[1]This is an application on notice for:

(a)the discharge of a Scheme pursuant to s 74(8) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (the Act); and

(b)removal of the 26th respondent from the proceeding.

[2]        An affidavit of service confirming service on the respondents has been filed. No steps have been taken by any respondent.

[3]        The application is supported by an affidavit of Rachel Allardice, the chairperson of the Body Corporate.

[4]        In view of the lack of opposition, the applicant requested that I deal with the application on the papers.

Background

[5]        On 22 February 2023, Downs J granted an application by the Body Corporate for the settlement of a Scheme pursuant to s 74 of the Act. This was in respect of the carrying out of building works to address moisture ingress, the presence of asbestos and inadequate passive fire protection.

[6]        Those building works required under the Scheme were carried out between March 2021 and May 2023. A Code Compliance Certificate has now been issued.

[7]        At the Annual General Meeting of the Body Corporate, the members unanimously voted in favour of the Body Corporate taking all necessary steps to obtain a discharge of the Scheme.

[8]        The applicant contends that, as the remedial works have now been completed, the Scheme is no longer appropriate nor necessary.

[9]        Section 74(8) of the Act provides that the High Court may cancel, vary, modify or discharge any order made by it under s 74. It is commonplace for a Body Corporate to apply for discharge once the building works have been completed.

[10]      The 26th respondent was placed into liquidation on 15 May 2009 and was removed from the Companies Register on 19 March 2019. It is to be removed as a party to this proceeding.

[11]      Being satisfied that all respondents have been served as confirmed by the affidavit of service, and there being no opposition, I make the orders set out in paragraph 1 of the applicant’s memorandum as to judgment dated 23 November 2023.

[12]The applicant does not seek costs.

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

Walker J

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1