Legal Research
Cases
Anderson Stuart v Treleaven & 1 Ors

Anderson Stuart v Treleaven & 1 Ors

Link copied

Case Copied 14 April 2000 95 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision: [2000] 49 NSWLR 88

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Anderson Stuart & Ors v Treleaven & 1 Ors [2000] NSWSC 283 revised - 8/05/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION:
Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1375/99

HEARING DATE(S): 09/02/00, 10/02/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 April 2000

PARTIES :

Peter Primrose Anderson Stuart and Colina Ann Anderson Stuart and Anderson Stuart Estates Pty Limited (Plaintiffs)
Ian G and Andrea M Treleaven (First Defendants)
The Proprietors - Strata Plan No. 10294 (Second Defendants)

JUDGMENT OF: Santow J

COUNSEL : M D Young (Plaintiffs)
A Bouris (Solicitor) (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Blessington Judd (Plaintiffs)
Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: PROPERTY — Case Stated under s101 of Justices Act 1902 (NSW) from order of Strata Titles Board allocating unit entitlements in waterfront block of units purportedly pursuant to s119 of Strata Titles Act 1973 (NSW) — Powers of Supreme Court limited to errors of laws — Scope of — Meaning of "having regard to respective values of the lots" in s119(2) — Relevance of principles of valuation from Spencer’s case and legitimacy of glossing these — No estoppel — Error of law in taking two valuations which Board considered unsatisfactory and taking mean — Other errors of law — Board expressing provisional view invites submissions but then disregards them on ground was functus — Breach of natural justice — Should application be dismissed where valuation evidence insufficient. - WORDS AND PHRASES — "respective values".

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 (NSW), s106
Strata Titles Act 1973 (NSW), s119, s130

CASES CITED: Allen v Kerr and Anor (SCNSW Court of Appeal, Clarke, Meagher and Powell JJA, 7 August 1995, unreported)
The Australian Gas Light Co v The Valuer General (1940) 40 SR(NSW) 126
Autodesk Inc. v Dyason (No. 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Limited (!985) 4 NSWLR 139
Bingham v Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR (NSW) 1
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited (1999) 167 ALR 575
Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647
Crompton v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 8
Dixon v City of Glenorchy (1978) 15 LGRA 407
Harris v Minister for Public Works (1912) 12 SR(NW) 149
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Humphryis v Spence [1920] VLR 407
Kahler and Anor v Sabaco Pty Limited, (NSWSC, Master Malpass, 6 February 1997, unreported)
Leichardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals Pty Limited & Glebe Island Terminals Pty Limited (1981) 48 LGRA 409
Lombardo v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 28 ALR 574
McPhee v S Bennet Limited (1935) 52 WN(NSW) 8
Marshall v Whittaker’s Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210
Mersey Docks and Harbour Borad v Birkenhead Assessment Committee [1901] AC 175
T A Miller Limited v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1968] 2 All ER 633
Minister of State for the Navy v Rae (1945) 70 CLR 339
Misfud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Mobil Oil Canada Limited v Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (1994) 11 DLR(4th) 1
New South Wales…

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 Anderson Stuart v Treleaven & 1 Ors 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: [2000] NSWSC 283
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anderson Stuart v Treleaven, the dispute centred around the allocation of unit entitlements in a waterfront block of units, with the allocation purportedly made under section 119 of the Strata Titles Act 1973 (NSW). The matter was brought to the Supreme Court via a case stated under section 101 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) from an order of the Strata Titles Board. The legal issues the court had to decide included the scope of the court's powers when limited to errors of law, the meaning of "having regard to respective values of the lots" in section 119(2) of the Act, and whether the principles of valuation from Spencer’s case could be applied or if they could be glossed over. Additionally, the court considered whether there was an error of law in the Board's approach to valuation and whether the Board's provisional view and subsequent disregard of submissions constituted a breach of natural justice.

The court found that the Strata Titles Board erred in law by taking two valuations that it considered unsatisfactory and then averaging them to determine the respective values of the units. The court held that the Board's actions in disregarding submissions after expressing a provisional view amounted to a breach of natural justice. Furthermore, the court held that the Board should not have dismissed the application merely because the valuation evidence was insufficient. The court also concluded that there was no estoppel and that the principles of valuation from Spencer’s case could not be glossed over, as they were integral to the proper interpretation of "respective values."

In light of the above, the court ruled that the application should not have been dismissed due to insufficient valuation evidence. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and natural justice principles in the allocation of unit entitlements. The case highlights the need for a rigorous approach to valuation in strata title matters and the critical role of the court in ensuring that such processes are conducted in accordance with the law. The final orders of the court will need to be determined based on this reasoning, ensuring that future proceedings comply with these legal principles.

Orders