LegalResearchFoundation

This article examines the intersection between corporate governance in condominium developments and preparedness for large-scale repairs should the building be so damaged that major repairs or reinstatement become necessary. It draws on material from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and elsewhere to assess whether various regimes for condominium governance are adequate to compel corporate bodies representing the owners of buildings and or management companies to: create and update plans for managing major risk events; prepare and administer repair plans; seek and maintain appropriate insurance cover; and manage the finances of the condominium organisation so as to ensure bodies corporate are in a position to deal reasonably effectively and speedily with major adverse events. The authors argue that generally regimes are inadequately rigorous and may well not adequately protect the interests of condominium residents and occupiers. Nor are the processes for allocation of insurance monies likely to be effective, equitable and speedy. The article concludes by considering the legal options open to residents who wish to contest the level of preparedness of the body corporate and/or the process of allocating insurance proceeds, including recourse to tribunals and the courts.

The Supreme Court has considered three major cases in the past few years involving undercover "scenario" operations conducted by New Zealand police. The decisions raised significant questions regarding the legality and propriety of these covert investigations, and examined those matters in the context of applications to exclude evidence or stay criminal prosecutions generated by the use of such techniques. More specifically, the appeals engaged the Court in the explication and application of various provisions of the Evidence Act 2006, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and/or common law abuse of process doctrine. This article analyses, compares and critiques the judgments in Wilson v R [2015] NZSC 189, [2016] 1 NZLR 705, R v Kumar [2015] NZSC 124, [2016] 1 NZLR 204 and R v Wichman [2015] NZSC 198, [2016] 1 NZLR 753. The discussion deals with various law, policy and fairness issues raised by the three cases — which are scrutinised both individually and collectively. It concludes with recommendations for the future legal control of police scenario operations in New Zealand, including suggestions for oversight based principally on legislative reform.

In a recent decision the New Zealand Supreme Court made significant changes to the doctrine of equitable contribution as that doctrine applies in New Zealand. The Court rejected the test previously applied to determine if the liabilities of two wrongdoers are sufficiently co-ordinate such that a right to claim contribution arises. In its place, the Court favoured a two-stage approach that, in substance, looks first at whether payment by either wrongdoer would discharge the liability of the other, and then assesses the amount of contribution to award based on what is just and reasonable. This article considers issues arising from this change in approach. It finds that complex issues of law can arise when assessing whether liabilities are discharged. However, it is suggested that this is a preferable approach to that previously adopted to assess whether liabilities are co-ordinate. The Supreme Court's approach may also have opened the door for future courts to adopt an unjust enrichment analysis to claims for contribution.