Mu v Body Corporate 312431

[2014] NZHC 2931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-2393 [2014] NZHC 2931

IN THE MATTER

of the Insolvency Act 2006

BETWEEN

DANNI MU Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 312431

Respondent

Hearing:	21 November 2014
Appearances:	Ms Mu in person Mr Singh for Respondent
Judgment:	21 November 2014

ORALJUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE [Representation]

MU v BODY CORPORATE 312431 [2014] NZHC 2931 [21 November 2014]

[1]      When this hearing commenced today Ms Mu who was representing herself raised  the  question  of  whether  Mr Singh  was  properly authorised  by the  Body Corporate, which is the respondent to this proceeding, to represent the Body Corporate.

[2]      It is clear that Ms Mu feels very strongly about these matters.  She was able to make her point to me although there were significant difficulties with the Court understanding what her contentions were.   The overall effect of what I have been told this morning is that Ms Mu and some other persons have joined in establishing what purports to be a rival Body Corporate in regard to the development which is the subject of the proceedings.   That development is named “Normanby Mews” at 22

Normanby Road, Mt Eden.  Ms Mu said that she wants to see proof that Mr Singh has the required authority to act for “the Body Corporate”

[3]      In  the  course  of  submissions  it  became  apparent  that  at  one  point  the dissenting group, if I may call it that, instructed Mr Bioletti, barrister to act for them. Ms Mu has said as much in a document filed with the Court.  While it is correct that Mr Bioletti was instructed, Mr Singh has by leave produced to the Court a further email string which includes a communication from Mr Bioletti dated Wednesday 19

November 2014 stating that he is not acting in the present proceeding.

[4]      The position is this.  There are documents on the Court file which show that there is a Body Corporate which has been holding meetings.  Those Body Corporate meetings  have  been  chaired  by  a  Ms  Sharron  O’Sullivan.     Ms  Mu,  I  note incidentally, says that Ms O’Sullivan has no authority to chair those meetings, not being an owner.  That point is irrelevant to the present proceedings.  But what seems to be plain is that the Body Corporate has in fact instructed Mr Singh’s firm to act. Mr Singh has filed documents on behalf of Body Corporate 312431.   In terms of r 5.37 he is to be taken as warranting that he is authorised by the party on whose behalf the documents have been filed that he is so authorised.  Further, Mr Singh as an officer of the Court has told me from counsel’s bench today that he is authorised to act for the Body Corporate.

[5]      In my view there is adequate evidence to establish Mr Singh’s authority. There is no countervailing evidence which would justify me in coming to a different conclusion.  Ms Mu may well be dissatisfied with that and as I have noted she has been seeking proof of Mr Singh’s authority.   In my view the Body Corporate and Mr Singh and his firm are not required to put any additional proof forward because it is requested by Ms Mu.  In my further opinion there is adequate material to establish proper authority on the part of Mr Singh to represent the Body Corporate and I will

conduct the hearing on that basis.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge