Tao v Strata Title Administration - [2015] NZHC 2215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-817 [2015] NZHC 2215

IN THE MATTER of the Unit Titles Act 2010

BETWEEN

AN LI TAO Plaintiff

AND

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD

First Defendant

JIGAR PANDYA Second Defendant

Hearing: 14 September 2015

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
E St John for the First and Second Defendant

Judgment:

14 September 2015

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Parties/Solicitors/Counsel: Ms A L Tao, Auckland
Mr E St John, Barrister, Auckland
Price Baker Berridge (First and Second Defendants’ solicitor), Solicitors, Auckland

TAO v STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD [2015] NZHC 2215 [14 September 2015]

[1] Ms Tao has applied for an interim injunction. She seeks what amount to four mandatory orders. I will come to the particular orders in a moment.

[2] The general principles that apply on an application for an interim injunction are well established but it may assist Ms Tao, in particular, as she is appearing on her own behalf, briefly to note the principles in broad outline.

[3] The first matter the Court has to consider on an interim injunction application is whether the person applying has established a serious question to be tried. That means a serious question which would be dealt with not on the hearing of the interim application but when the main case comes to trial. In other words, should an interim order be made at this stage because at a later date, when all the evidence is before the Court, there will be a serious question to be determined.

[4] The other general matter that applies is usually referred to as the ‘balance of convenience’. That requires an assessment of factors on both sides – factors that may support the making of the order and those that are against the making of the order. And the Court is then required to assess, in a broad way, the overall justice of the case.

[5] What is pivotal on this application is the first matter – whether there is a serious question to be tried. It is clear from the submissions fully put forward by Ms Tao that she has real concerns about the way in which Body Corporate No. 198693 is being managed. In her affidavit, and more fully in her submissions to me, she has outlined a range of matters. These are the underlying concerns that have led to Ms Tao seeking the interim orders she now seeks. As I made clear to Ms Tao, a Court on an application for an interim injunction is not in a position to reach conclusions on the underlying dispute. For example, Ms Tao contends that the first defendant was not validly appointed as a body corporate manager. She has made allegations about the way in which body corporate funds have been managed. Whether Ms Tao is correct in these contentions or not is not something that I can determine on this application. What I have to determine is whether the particular orders sought give rise to a serious question to…

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.

Continue reading Tao v Strata Title Administration

Details

AGLC: Tao v Strata Title Administration [2015] NZHC 2215
Case: [2015] NZHC 2215
Decision Date: 14 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ms An Li Tao, the plaintiff, sought an interim injunction against Strata Title Administration Ltd, the first defendant, and Jigar Pandya, the second defendant, in relation to the management of Body Corporate No. 198693. Ms Tao sought four specific orders to address her concerns about the body corporate's management. The court had to determine if the application for an interim injunction could proceed based on the general principles established for such applications. The first principle required the applicant to establish a serious question to be tried, and the second principle involved assessing the balance of convenience.

The court found that Ms Tao had not established a serious question to be tried for the purposes of the interim injunction. The court was not in a position to determine the validity of Ms Tao's concerns about the body corporate's management. Instead, the court needed to assess whether the orders sought would give rise to a serious question to be tried in a substantive hearing. The court concluded that the orders sought were governed by the Unit Titles Act 2010 and the Unit Titles Regulations 2011, and the court did not have the power to override these provisions. Consequently, the court did not grant any of the orders sought by Ms Tao.

The court also noted that Ms Tao should seek legal advice and representation for her ongoing proceedings, as she appeared to have some misunderstandings about the law. The court reserved costs for the interim injunction application, as the substantive claim remained to be disposed of. The court provided further directions for amending the statement of claim, responding to any amendments, and scheduling a case management conference. Finally, the court amended the intituling of the proceeding to remove unnecessary detail.

Orders