Adendorff v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629 - [2021] NSWCATCD 76

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adendorff v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629 [2021] NSWCATCD 76
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 02 August 2021
Decision date: 02 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: K Ross, Senior Member
Decision:
1 An order is made pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, dispensing with a hearing.
2 The costs applications are dismissed.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Where Rule 38 does not apply — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
The Owners Corporation Strata Plan No. 63341 v Malachite Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 256
Megerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Costs
Parties: Tracey Adendorff (Applicant)
The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629
Representation: Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors (Respondent)

File Number(s): SC20/29714, SC20/29716 and SC20/34752
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Applications

These applications concern a 2 storey commercial building in Coffs Harbour. There are 7 lots in the strata scheme comprising SP 16229. The applicant in files SC20/29714 and SC20/29716, Tracey Adendorff, and her husband Michael Adendorff (“the Lot Owners”) are the owners of lot 6 in the strata plan. The Owners SP 16229 (“the Owners Corporation”) is the respondent.
On 31 July 2020 the Tribunal made an interim order on file SC20/29714, staying motions 9, 10 and 11 passed at the AGM on 29 June 2020 until further order or the finalisation of SC20/29716.
On 13 August 2020, the Owners Corporation filed application SC20/34752. The Lot Owners are the respondents.
The Tribunal published its decision in respect of all 3 applications on 9 June 2021. Application SC 20/29716 was dismissed. The order made on 31 July 2020 on SC 20/29714 was revoked and the stay was lifted. On application SC 20/34752, the Owners Corporation was successful, and the Lot Owners were ordered to remove the works for which authorisation from the Owners Corporation had not been obtained.
The Tribunal provided for the parties to make submissions in respect of costs. The Owners Corporation filed submissions seeking that the Lot Owners pay its costs in respect of all three applications.
The Lot Owners have not filed any submissions in reply.
This is the decision in respect of the cost applications.

Order under s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013

The Tribunal sought submissions as to whether a hearing of this costs application should be dispensed with. The Owners Corporation submits that the Tribunal should determine this application on the papers and without a hearing. The Lot Owners have not filed any submissions in respect of this issue.
I am satisfied that a hearing on the papers is consistent with the Tribunal’s guiding principle. The issues to be determined are not complex and a hearing of the cost application would add to delay and increase the costs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adendorff v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWCATCD 76
Decision Date: 02 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adendorff v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629 involved a dispute between a unit owner and the body corporate of a strata scheme over the assessment and payment of strata levies. The matter was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the body corporate was entitled to recover unpaid strata levies from the unit owner, and if so, whether the Tribunal had the authority to order the unit owner to pay those levies directly to the body corporate.

The Tribunal considered the relevant legislative framework, including the Strata Schemes Development Act 1975 and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal found that while the body corporate had the right to recover unpaid levies, it did not have the authority to directly order the unit owner to pay those levies to the body corporate. Instead, any order for payment of levies would need to be made directly to the unit owner, who would then be responsible for paying the body corporate. The Tribunal also noted that, in the absence of any special circumstances warranting an award of costs under Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, the applications for costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of understanding the statutory framework governing strata schemes and the limitations of the Tribunal's powers in resolving disputes. The outcome of this case is likely to be of interest to unit owners and body corporates alike, as it clarifies the process for recovering unpaid strata levies and the role of the Tribunal in enforcing such recoveries.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 An order is made pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, dispensing with a hearing.

2 The costs applications are dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Adendorff v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629 [2021] NSWCATCD 76
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	02 August 2021
Decision date:	02 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	K Ross, Senior Member
Decision:	1 An order is made pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, dispensing with a hearing. 2 The costs applications are dismissed.
Catchwords:	COSTS — Where Rule 38 does not apply — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	The Owners Corporation Strata Plan No. 63341 v Malachite Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 256 Megerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Tracey Adendorff (Applicant) The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16629
Representation:	Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors (Respondent)
File Number(s):	SC20/29714, SC20/29716 and SC20/34752
Publication restriction:	Nil