Bremner v Body Corporate 51615 - [2025] NZHC 2946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-225

[2025] NZHC 2946

UNDER Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under s 141 of the Unit Titles Act 2010

BETWEEN

ADRIENNE JEAN BREMNER

Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 51615

Respondent

DAPHNE PATRICIA COLEMAN

Interested Party

On the papers:

Counsel

A J Knowsley for Applicant

No appearance for Body Corporate 51615 D C Calder for Interested Party

Judgment:

7 October 2025

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[Costs]

Introduction

[1] This is an interim judgment as to costs following the applicant Ms Bremner’s largely successful application before me for the appointment of an administrator to a Body Corporate 51615 made on 11 April 2025.

[2] The interested party, Ms Coleman, largely on behalf of about five other unit owners in the Body Corporate, opposed the original application and now opposes Ms Bremner’s application for costs.

BREMNER v BODY CORPORATE 51615 (COSTS) [2025] NZHC 2946 [7 October 2025]

[3] At the substantive hearing on 11 August 2025 on which the application largely succeeded, the hearing was attended by the applicant and her legal representatives, the legal representatives of Ms Coleman, and one other owner of a unit in the Body Corporate, Ms Ashby-Belworthy.

[4]Following that substantive hearing, I made orders as follows:

(a)appointing Everything Body Corporate Limited as an administrator of the Body Corporate;

(b)appointing the administrator for a period of three years from 1 September 2025; and

(c)noting that costs were to be determined between the parties if possible, and if not, to be the subject of memoranda filed.

[5] The parties advised that they have been unable to reach agreement on costs. Memoranda of submissions have now been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ms Bremner, and in reply on behalf of the interested party, Ms Coleman.

[6]Here, the applicant seeks indemnity costs with respect to this matter totalling

$53,740.94 plus disbursements of $5,753.50.

[7] Alternatively, if the Court is to award scale costs to the applicant then the applicant Ms Bremner seeks a 100 per cent uplift on category 2B costs (which 2B costs themselves total $10,874.50) plus the disbursements amount of $5,753.50.

[8] As I indicated in my 19 August 2025 judgment, and I confirm here, the applicant as the largely successful party in these proceedings, is entitled to costs.

[9] As I understand the position, the interested party, Ms Coleman, largely represents the interests of a number of the other unit owners in the Body Corporate excluding Ms Bremner. Her position appears to be that she opposes an order of either indemnity or increased costs here but appears to acknowledge to some extent that Ms

Bremner as the successful party in this application, should be entitled to costs on a reasonable category 2B scale basis.

Costs, the Unit Titles Act 2010 and the High Court Rules

[10] The present application was brought in terms of s 141 of the Unit Titles Act…

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 Bremner v Body Corporate 51615 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: [2025] NZHC 2946
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application under section 141 of the Unit Titles Act 2010, Adrienne Jean Bremner, the applicant, sought the appointment of an administrator for Body Corporate 51615, which she largely succeeded in achieving. The application was opposed by Daphne Patricia Coleman, who acted on behalf of several unit owners in the Body Corporate, excluding Ms Bremner. The substantive hearing took place on 11 August 2025, attended by the applicant, her legal representatives, the legal representatives of Ms Coleman, and one other unit owner, Ms Ashby-Belworthy. Following the hearing, the court appointed Everything Body Corporate Limited as the administrator for a period of three years, starting from 1 September 2025, and noted that costs were to be determined between the parties.

The court was required to decide on the costs incurred by Ms Bremner, as the largely successful party in the application, and whether she was entitled to indemnity costs or an increased scale of costs. Ms Bremner sought indemnity costs amounting to $53,740.94 plus disbursements of $5,753.50, or alternatively, a 100 per cent uplift on category 2B costs, which totalled $10,874.50, plus the disbursements amount. Ms Coleman opposed an order of either indemnity or increased costs, but acknowledged that Ms Bremner, as the successful party, should be entitled to costs on a reasonable category 2B scale basis.

The court considered the legal framework for determining costs, which included section 141(8) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, which allows the High Court to make any order for the payment of costs as it thinks fit, and the High Court Rules, particularly rule 14.6(4), which provides that the Court may order a party to pay indemnity costs if there is a compelling reason to do so. The court noted that the present matter, involving the appointment of an administrator under the Unit Titles Act, attracted other considerations. In a similar case, May v Body Corporate 329331, Lang J held that it was appropriate for the shortfall in costs to be met by all unit owners as if it were part of the cost of remedial work. The court concluded that Ms Bremner's application was made not solely for her own benefit but for the benefit of all the unit owners as members of the Body Corporate. Therefore, her reasonable legal costs and disbursements on this application should be met by the Body Corporate itself and shared equally by contributions between all owners, including Ms Bremner.

The court ordered that Ms Bremner was entitled to an award of her reasonable actual legal costs incurred of, and incidental to, this proceeding, but the amount of this award was still to be determined. The court directed that Ms Bremner's counsel file a memorandum outlining the work involved in each of the indemnity costs invoices and addressing the claim for drafting submissions for the costs determination, to be followed by a response from Ms Coleman's counsel. The court would then give a final decision on the reasonable amount of actual costs to be awarded to Ms Bremner. As for the claim for $5,753.50 for disbursements, the court confirmed and ordered that Ms Bremner was entitled to an award against the respondent of reasonable disbursements of, and incidental to, this proceeding, to be made to the Registrar with appropriate information as to quantum to be provided for consideration.

Orders