What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9044164 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of standing.

How much money was awarded in case 9044164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044164?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515695-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9044164 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of standing.

How much money was awarded in case 9044164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9044164?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9044164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515695-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Epsom, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9044164 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed for want of standing.

Reasons

Lance Goodger, a unit owner attended the hearing as purported representative of the Body Corporate (“BC 560961”). He was accompanied by another unit owner, Francis Chang.
Darren van der Wal attended for the Body Corporate Manager (“Strictly BC”). Background
Mr Goodger’s claim alleges 42 breaches against Strictly BC.
BC 5061 is part of the new Ramada Newmarket complex located at 41-43 Gillies Avenue in Newmarket, Auckland. The complex comprises three principal buildings: Building A is an apartment building with its own body corporate; Building B - which BC 560961 is the body corporate for - is also an apartment building; and Building C, which is a hotel, also has its own body corporate.
While there are three separate body corporates for each building, this body corporate and another of them (Body Corporate 560962 – Ramada Hotel) are subsidiaries of Body Corporate 560960 (Body Corporate Head).
At essence, Mr Goodger’s claim is about the unit owners of Building B being treated unfairly compared to the unit owners of Building A (Body Corporate 560959 – Highwic).
However, before the Tribunal considers the substance of Mr Goodger’s claim it must determine a challenge to Mr Goodger’s standing. Standing
Mr van der Wal challenges Mr Goodger’s standing. 1 He says that BC 560960 has not authorised Mr Goodger to bring proceedings on its behalf – something that would require a formal resolution at a properly constituted meeting.
Mr Goodger relies upon the minutes of the 5 October 2022 Annual General Meeting of the four related body corporates. The Minutes record Mr Goodger as being “representative of BC560961”. 2
However, the Minute is only recording that Mr Goodger is BC 56091’s subsidiary body corporate representative. 3 A subsidiary body corporate representative has only limited functions at general meetings under s 94(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. That subsection provides: (2) If the subsidiary body corporate representative attends a general meeting, it must represent its body corporate or its body corporate committee— (a) in the way its body corporate or its body corporate committee directs; and (b) subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of its body corporate or its body corporate committee.
That being so, there is no evidence that Mr Goodger has authority to take proceedings for BC 56091. 4
It is important that unit owners are given a full opportunity to decide whether they want their body corporate to bring legal proceedings. Litigation has many pitfalls, not the least being that unsuccessful litigants are typically required to contribute to the successful litigant’s legal costs, which can be expensive. 1 Respondent’s Memorandum dated 6 October 2023. 2 The Minutes of the AGM, 5 October 2022, Item 6 Formation of Committee. 3 Mr Goodger’s appointment as a representative (if there was one) appears defective because under the Unit Titles Act s 93, it is the subsidiary body corporate that is supposed to appoint its representative. 4 Nor is it clear that a subsidiary body corporate could authorise a representative to take legal proceedings without authority from its parent body corporate. Mootness
Mr van der Wal also submitted that Mr Goodger’s claims are moot on the basis that all of his concerns are being constructively worked through.
The Tribunal is not required to consider whether the claim is moot in the circumstances.
Of course, the more fully that any justiciable issues are resolved, the more likely it is that the claims will be found moot at a later date should proceedings be validly brought. Potential further claim
Mr van der Wal says that the body corporates’ structure and constitutional underpinnings are being reviewed and will be amended at the next AGM in November 2023. He says that once that is done, BC 560961 may be able to authorise a representative to bring proceedings. 5 If that is so, BC 560961 may wish to carefully consider whether bringing such a claim is a good use of its resources, bearing in mind the need for and potential benefit of litigation but also the risks inherent in any litigation. Conclusion
The application is dismissed for want of standing.

Order

The application is dismissed for want of standing.

Reasons

Lance Goodger, a unit owner attended the hearing as purported representative of the Body Corporate (“BC 560961”). He was accompanied by another unit owner, Francis Chang.
Darren van der Wal attended for the Body Corporate Manager (“Strictly BC”). Background
Mr Goodger’s claim alleges 42 breaches against Strictly BC.
BC 5061 is part of the new Ramada Newmarket complex located at 41-43 Gillies Avenue in Newmarket, Auckland. The complex comprises three principal buildings: Building A is an apartment building with its own body corporate; Building B - which BC 560961 is the body corporate for - is also an apartment building; and Building C, which is a hotel, also has its own body corporate.
While there are three separate body corporates for each building, this body corporate and another of them (Body Corporate 560962 – Ramada Hotel) are subsidiaries of Body Corporate 560960 (Body Corporate Head).
At essence, Mr Goodger’s claim is about the unit owners of Building B being treated unfairly compared to the unit owners of Building A (Body Corporate 560959 – Highwic).
However, before the Tribunal considers the substance of Mr Goodger’s claim it must determine a challenge to Mr Goodger’s standing. Standing
Mr van der Wal challenges Mr Goodger’s standing. 1 He says that BC 560960 has not authorised Mr Goodger to bring proceedings on its behalf – something that would require a formal resolution at a properly constituted meeting.
Mr Goodger relies upon the minutes of the 5 October 2022 Annual General Meeting of the four related body corporates. The Minutes record Mr Goodger as being “representative of BC560961”. 2
However, the Minute is only recording that Mr Goodger is BC 56091’s subsidiary body corporate representative. 3 A subsidiary body corporate representative has only limited functions at general meetings under s 94(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. That subsection provides: (2) If the subsidiary body corporate representative attends a general meeting, it must represent its body corporate or its body corporate committee— (a) in the way its body corporate or its body corporate committee directs; and (b) subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of its body corporate or its body corporate committee.
That being so, there is no evidence that Mr Goodger has authority to take proceedings for BC 56091. 4
It is important that unit owners are given a full opportunity to decide whether they want their body corporate to bring legal proceedings. Litigation has many pitfalls, not the least being that unsuccessful litigants are typically required to contribute to the successful litigant’s legal costs, which can be expensive. 1 Respondent’s Memorandum dated 6 October 2023. 2 The Minutes of the AGM, 5 October 2022, Item 6 Formation of Committee. 3 Mr Goodger’s appointment as a representative (if there was one) appears defective because under the Unit Titles Act s 93, it is the subsidiary body corporate that is supposed to appoint its representative. 4 Nor is it clear that a subsidiary body corporate could authorise a representative to take legal proceedings without authority from its parent body corporate. Mootness
Mr van der Wal also submitted that Mr Goodger’s claims are moot on the basis that all of his concerns are being constructively worked through.
The Tribunal is not required to consider whether the claim is moot in the circumstances.
Of course, the more fully that any justiciable issues are resolved, the more likely it is that the claims will be found moot at a later date should proceedings be validly brought. Potential further claim
Mr van der Wal says that the body corporates’ structure and constitutional underpinnings are being reviewed and will be amended at the next AGM in November 2023. He says that once that is done, BC 560961 may be able to authorise a representative to bring proceedings. 5 If that is so, BC 560961 may wish to carefully consider whether bringing such a claim is a good use of its resources, bearing in mind the need for and potential benefit of litigation but also the risks inherent in any litigation. Conclusion
The application is dismissed for want of standing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044164 — Unit Titles in Epsom, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9044164 — Unit Titles in Epsom, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions