Ruling notes proposed appeal was 183 working days out of time
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has found it unnecessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine an appeal proposed by applicants alleging a systemic national crisis in body corporate governance and a failure of the representative litigation process.
The plaintiffs – the body corporate and Ms Wu – filed a leaky building claim against Argon Construction Limited and the Auckland Council. The plaintiffs achieved partial success. The court awarded damages of around $4.9m to the plaintiffs and costs to the body corporate.
The applicants – Ms Wu and Ms Wang, another unit owner – proposed an appeal against the body corporate 183 working days out of time.
The applicants claimed that the body corporate fraudulently handled the dispute with Argon and the council and challenged its rejection of a Calderbank offer allegedly much larger than the total attributable to the evidence.
The applicants requested an extension of time to appeal the costs decision by 183 days. Ms Wang sought a substitution as a party to the proposed appeal.
On 14 October 2025, in Wang v Body Corporate 406198 [2025] NZCA 536, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand denied the application for an extension of time.
The appeal court ordered the applicants to pay the first respondent standard costs on a band A basis amounting to $583,254, plus the usual disbursements of $579,514.73.
The appeal court determined that the applicants failed to sufficiently explain the delay of 183 days. The appeal court did not consider engagement with the body corporate in other litigation a good reason for the delay.
The appeal court found the proposed appeal misconceived for a number of reasons. First, the appeal court stressed that this matter involved a costs award in the plaintiffs’ favour. The appeal court noted that appeals could only challenge a judgment, decree, or order made.
Second, the appeal court considered an appeal against a costs award an improper vehicle to achieve Ms Wu’s and Ms Wang’s other objectives for the appeal. The appeal court emphasised the costs award’s limitation to the parties’ conduct in the proceedings.
The appeal court explained that Ms Wu’s and Ms Wang’s complaints against the body corporate involved internal disputes that the Tenancy Tribunal had tackled, going well beyond the body corporate’s conduct in the proceedings.
The appeal court noted that a successful party would normally only challenge a favourable costs award to increase it. The appeal court deemed the appeal unnecessary to the extent that it aimed to avoid costs against Ms Wu.
Moreover, the appeal court found it unnecessary to rule on the substitution application at this time, given its other findings.
The applicants sought leave to appeal and raised concerns regarding the body corporate’s handling of the dispute.
Specifically, the applicants argued that the appeal court too narrowly interpreted the interests of justice test in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80 and failed to meaningfully address their serious fraud and misconduct allegations.
On 6 March 2026, in Wang v Body Corporate 406198 [2026] NZSC 14, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal for two reasons.
First, the Supreme Court ruled that a separate proceeding should determine the applicants’ serious and extensive grievances against the body corporate, which were irrelevant to the costs calculation and beyond the scope of an appeal against the costs judgment.
Second, the Supreme Court pointed out that the applicants did not attempt to explain the 183-day delay to the appeal court.
The Supreme Court ordered the applicants to pay the body corporate costs of $2,500.
