Hannam v Body Corporate 126001 - [2024] 3 NZLR 266

Unit Titles — Scheme — Three step process — Building damaged or destroyed? — Scheme is appropriate in circumstances? — Terms? — Unit Titles Act 1972 s 48.

Unit Titles — Settlement Agreement — Not frustrated — Still binding despite cancellation of consent order — Court wide discretion — Settlement Agreement not binding on Court but relevant — Level of support relevant — Principles of cost allocation not closed but include balancing interests of unit owners — No presumption that the payment of costs should be on a utility interest basis — Owners should adhere to scheme bought into — Legitimate expectations should be given effect — Unit Titles Act 2010 s 74.

Unit Titles — Scheme — Cost allocation — Ownership interest not necessarily fairest — Body Corporate’s proposal fairest — Number of factors — Exterior walls not common property — Appropriate to limit scheme to affected areas — Legitimate expectations — Subsidiary Body Corporate paid for recladding its exterior — Not affected by proposed scheme repairs — Appellants representation they would meet costs — Appellants had agreed to cost allocation in settlement agreement.

Unit Titles — Appellants’ proposals — Could not adopt them — Other owners had no opportunity to be heard — Would not achieve fairest outcome between all unit owners — Fire safety testing not required.