How much money was awarded in case 9040905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9040905?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9040905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328751-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9040905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9040905?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9040905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328751-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Thorndon, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9040905 — Unit Titles

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9040905 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for majority relief under section 211 Unit Titles Act 2010 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Body corporate manager Doug Wilson, another unit owner Irene Lobez, current body corporate chairman A and former chairman B also attended.

The applicant Mr Marsh seeks majority relief under section 211(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’) to have a special resolution tabled at the 6 December 2022 EGM confirmed on the grounds that the effect of the failure of the resolution to be passed would be unjust or inequitable on the majority.

The resolution in question reads: "That the value of the units in relation to each other at the property is reassessed by a Registered Valuer (Valuation) and that the Ownership and Utility Interest for each unit be assigned in accordance with the Valuation, and that the cost of the valuation is paid for by the body corporate from funds on hand, with the Utility Interest to be individually assessed and further reviewed by owners."

Because the resolution concerns a decision to reassess the ownership interest or utility interest, or both, for each unit and assign to each unit the new interest or interests under section 41(1) UTA, the body corporate’s decision must be carried by special resolution at a general meeting.

The parties acknowledge that only 66.7% of the votes taken and counted at the 6 December 2022 were in favour of the resolution in question. Section 98 (4) UTA states that for a special resolution to pass, 75% of the eligible voters who vote on the resolution must vote in favour of the resolution.

In this case, while 65% of the eligible voters have voted in favour of the resolution, section 211(1A) provides that an application for relief under subsection (1) must be made within 28 days of the close of voting on the resolution.

The close of voting and tallying of votes were taken on 6 December 2022. This application to the Tribunal (as an application to the appropriate decision-maker) to have the resolution confirmed (on the grounds that the effect of the failure of the resolution to be passed would be unjust or inequitable on the majority) was made on 31 January 2023, well outside the mandatory period of 28 days of the close of voting on the resolution.

I am therefore without jurisdiction to address this application for majority relief under section 211 UTA.

The parties’ reference to changes to the original resolution in the notice of the EGM from the final resolution tabled at the 6 December 2022 EGM, regardless of whether the changes were material or otherwise, only exacerbates my reluctance to grant any relief under section 211, even if it was made within the 28 days’ timeframe. Two postal votes had been received (and counted) in respect of the original resolution that was on the EGM agenda. Therefore, the fact that the final resolution tabled at the EGM differs from the original resolution on the agenda would have tainted the decision- making process of the body corporate on the reassessment of ownership and utility interest exercise in the first place.

Under those circumstances, this application for majority relief must fail.

Order

The application for majority relief under section 211 Unit Titles Act 2010 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Body corporate manager Doug Wilson, another unit owner Irene Lobez, current body corporate chairman A and former chairman B also attended.
The applicant Mr Marsh seeks majority relief under section 211(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’) to have a special resolution tabled at the 6 December 2022 EGM confirmed on the grounds that the effect of the failure of the resolution to be passed would be unjust or inequitable on the majority.
The resolution in question reads: "That the value of the units in relation to each other at the property is reassessed by a Registered Valuer (Valuation) and that the Ownership and Utility Interest for each unit be assigned in accordance with the Valuation, and that the cost of the valuation is paid for by the body corporate from funds on hand, with the Utility Interest to be individually assessed and further reviewed by owners."
Because the resolution concerns a decision to reassess the ownership interest or utility interest, or both, for each unit and assign to each unit the new interest or interests under section 41(1) UTA, the body corporate’s decision must be carried by special resolution at a general meeting.
The parties acknowledge that only 66.7% of the votes taken and counted at the 6 December 2022 were in favour of the resolution in question. Section 98 (4) UTA states that for a special resolution to pass, 75% of the eligible voters who vote on the resolution must vote in favour of the resolution.
In this case, while 65% of the eligible voters have voted in favour of the resolution, section 211(1A) provides that an application for relief under subsection (1) must be made within 28 days of the close of voting on the resolution.
The close of voting and tallying of votes were taken on 6 December 2022. This application to the Tribunal (as an application to the appropriate decision-maker) to have the resolution confirmed (on the grounds that the effect of the failure of the resolution to be passed would be unjust or inequitable on the majority) was made on 31 January 2023, well outside the mandatory period of 28 days of the close of voting on the resolution.
I am therefore without jurisdiction to address this application for majority relief under section 211 UTA.
The parties’ reference to changes to the original resolution in the notice of the EGM from the final resolution tabled at the 6 December 2022 EGM, regardless of whether the changes were material or otherwise, only exacerbates my reluctance to grant any relief under section 211, even if it was made within the 28 days’ timeframe. Two postal votes had been received (and counted) in respect of the original resolution that was on the EGM agenda. Therefore, the fact that the final resolution tabled at the EGM differs from the original resolution on the agenda would have tainted the decision- making process of the body corporate on the reassessment of ownership and utility interest exercise in the first place.
Under those circumstances, this application for majority relief must fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9040905 — Unit Titles in Thorndon, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9040905 — Unit Titles in Thorndon, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions