John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd v Body Corporate 162791

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 59/2015
[2015] NZSC 133

BETWEEN

JOHN GILBERT
First Applicant

QSM TRUSTEE LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 162791
Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	D J Chisholm QC and S M Jass for First Applicant J Anderson and T J G Allan for Respondent
Judgment:	4 September 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).

BThe approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i)to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii)to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Tompkins Wake, Hamilton for First Applicant
Grove Darlow & Partners, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondents, Body Corporate 162791, sought to recover levies from the applicants in relation to certain units. The central issues before the court were whether the first applicant, John Gilbert, was personally liable under section 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 for the body corporate levies and whether he had an arguable claim for relief from this personal liability under section 32(7) of the Act.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the application of precedent. It was determined that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted section 32(5) of the Act, holding that John Gilbert was indeed personally liable for the levies in relation to the units held by QSM Trustee Ltd. Regarding the second issue, the court found that there was no arguable basis for relief from this personal liability under section 32(7), as the statutory language did not provide a clear path for such relief.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeal, granting the application for leave to appeal but confirming the correctness of the lower court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the first applicant remained personally liable for the levies, and no relief from this liability was available under the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established