Unit titles
Tim Rainey is one of New Zealand’s leading experts on the Unit Titles Act 2010 and has appeared in a large number of the leading cases considering the rights and obligations of parties under that Act, as well as its predecessor, the Unit Titles Act 1972. Tim was an early advocate for the use of schemes for the repair of defective unit title developments under section 48 of the Unit Titles Act 1972 (now section 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010) and drafted a number of the early schemes sanctioned by the Courts. Tim has also appeared in many of the cases establishing the limits of such schemes, as well as the limits on the powers and duties of bodies corporate more generally.
This has included acting for the body corporate in what is now the leading authority on the power of the Courts to set aside service agreements entered into by the developer of a unit title property while it exercises control over the voting rights of the body corporate: Body Corporate 396711 v Sentinel Management Ltd [2012] 13 NZCPR 418. That case is also notable for confirming that, in New Zealand, a developer was in that period in a fiduciary relationship with the purchasers and could not act to profit itself at the expense of the purchasers.
Tim’s notable cases in this area include:
Body Corporate 201036 v Broadway Developments Ltd [2009] 11 NZCPR 233, where the High Court decided, for the first time, that the ultra vires doctrine constrains the power of a body corporate to enter into contracts with third party service providers.
Body Corporate 198072 v Bank of New Zealand [2011] 3 NZLR 249, in which the High Court discussed the limits on its discretion to make orders establishing a scheme for the repair of unit title property under section 48 of the Unit Titles Act 1972.
ABCDE Investments Ltd v van Gog [2012] 13 NZCPR 539, in which the Court of Appeal considered the relationship between the rights and obligations of unit owners under the Unit Titles Act and those imposed by an encumbrance registered over the titles to the units.
Russmorr Ltd v Body Corporate 345866 [2016] 18 NZCPR 56, in which the Court of Appeal considered the vires of an agreement entered into by the body corporate to lease one of the units for a manager’s apartment.
More recent cases in this area include:
Body Corporate 346086 v Chan [2025] NZHC 3895, where Tim acted for unit owners opposing aspects of a proposed scheme, in an application under section 74 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 for approval of a scheme for remedial works to a unit title development.
Body Corporate 156063 v Stylo Investments Ltd [2025] NZHC 231, concerning an application to cancel a unit plan and order the sale of the base land following extensive building defects, where the body corporate was unable to fund the necessary remediation works.
Bhardwaj Family Trust Ltd v Body Corporate [2024] NZHC 2572, concerning a challenge to the validity of utility interests allocated at the time of deposit of a unit plan, raising issues central to the operation of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
Body Corporate 406198 v Property Opportunities Ltd [2023] NZCA 302, concerning the validity of a management agreement entered into by a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act 1972, and the scope of the body corporate’s statutory authority under the ultra vires doctrine.
Body Corporate S90876 v Palmer Trading Ltd [2022] NZHC 146, concerning the interpretation and validity of a building management and caretaking agreement within a unit title development.
Contact
Tim is happy to provide advice and representation in any of his areas of expertise.