Hill v Body Corporate 372185 - [2024] NZHC 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2023-470-111

[2024] NZHC 600

BETWEEN
JENNIFER MARLENE HILL

Plaintiff

AND

BODY CORPORATE 372185

Defendant

Hearing: 27 February 2024

Counsel:

J W McDougall / M A Chester for the Plaintiff A J Lloyd / J J K Spring for the Defendant

Judgment:

19 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2024 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland

HILL v BODY CORPORATE 372185 [2024] NZHC 600 [19 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Jennifer Hill, is one of the lessees of a registered leasehold interest in unit 12 in a unit title development in Tauranga known as Trinity Wharf. The defendant is the body corporate of Trinity Wharf.

[2] The leased unit is a stratum in leasehold under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). The registered owner of the stratum in leasehold interest, and the lessor to Ms Hill, is Trinity Wharf Limited (TWL). TWL is not a party to this proceeding.

[3] Ms Hill pleads that she is the authorised representative of seven other lessees of units, and that those lessees have the same interest as Ms Hill in the subject matter of this proceeding.

[4] Ms Hill and the other lessees that she represents take issue with resolutions purportedly passed by the body corporate at, or following, the annual general meeting held on 13 April 2023. In particular, the group of lessees seek to challenge resolutions: not to form a body corporate committee; confirming that the chairperson of the body corporate continues to be subject to the duties specified in reg 11 of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011; and approving the operating budget of the body corporate for the year ended 30 June 2024.

[5] If Ms Hill is unsuccessful in overturning the budget resolution, then Ms Hill seeks minority relief under s 210 of the UTA.

[6] The body corporate has filed a protest to jurisdiction, and now seeks an order dismissing the proceeding on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine it.1

[7] The body corporate argues that the Tenancy Tribunal (the Tribunal) has exclusive jurisdiction to hear Ms Hill’s claim, and that Ms Hill and the other lessees do not have standing to apply for minority relief under s 210 of the UTA because they

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 5.49(3).

were not entitled to vote in their own right on the budget resolution. Rather, they were only able to vote as agents of TWL as the registered owner of the units.

[8] The body corporate’s application raises novel issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the High Court conferred by ss 171 and 173 of the UTA.

The structure of the unit titles and leases

[9] This proceeding is not the first time that a group…

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 Hill v Body Corporate 372185 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: [2024] NZHC 600
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hill v Body Corporate 372185 before the High Court of New Zealand involved Jennifer Hill, a lessee of unit 12 in Trinity Wharf, challenging resolutions passed by the body corporate. The defendant, Body Corporate 372185, argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The Court needed to decide whether the High Court retained inherent jurisdiction to hear unit title disputes beyond its express jurisdiction under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). Additionally, the Court had to determine if the lessees had standing to seek minority relief under s 210 of the UTA.

Associate Judge Brittain examined the structure of the unit titles and leases, noting that Trinity Wharf Limited (TWL) was the sole owner of all units and the sole member of the body corporate. The lessees, including Ms Hill, had been appointed as TWL's attorneys to vote on its behalf at meetings of the body corporate. The body corporate had passed resolutions concerning the formation of a committee, the chairperson’s duties, and the operating budget for the year ending 30 June 2024. Ms Hill challenged these resolutions, particularly the budget resolution, and sought minority relief if unsuccessful.

The Court found that the dispute fell within the definition of a unit title dispute under s 171 of the UTA. The Tribunal had jurisdiction over disputes that did not involve title of land and did not exceed $100,000, while the District Court had jurisdiction over disputes between $100,000 and $350,000. The High Court had jurisdiction over disputes exceeding $350,000 or involving title of land. The Court concluded that the High Court retained concurrent jurisdiction with the Tribunal and District Court for unit title disputes involving non-money claims and money claims below $350,000. The Court also found that the lessees did not have standing to seek minority relief under s 210 of the UTA as they were not registered owners of principal units.

The Court declined the body corporate's application for dismissal, struck out the plaintiff's third cause of action, and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim and an application for representation. The defendant was directed to file its statement of defence. The proceeding was adjourned for review, and costs were directed to follow the event with a reduction for mixed success. If the parties could not agree on costs, the Court would determine them on the papers.

Orders