Boutenko v The Owners Strata Plan No 77480
Case
•
[2022] NSWCATCD 166
•12 August 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Boutenko v The Owners Strata Plan No 77480 [2022] NSWCATCD 166
[2022] NSWCATCD 166
12 August 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Boutenko v The Owners Strata Plan No 77480, the dispute involved the owner of a strata lot who sought damages against the owners corporation for the corporation's failure to repair common property. The case was heard by the New South Wales Supreme Court. The primary issue was whether the applicant's claim was time-barred under s 106(6) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), considering the applicant's knowledge of the loss.
The court had to determine the specific point at which the applicant knew or ought to have known about the loss, which would trigger the commencement of the limitation period. The applicant argued that they only became aware of the damage when the owners corporation failed to respond to a notice to repair. The owners corporation, however, contended that the limitation period began when the damage first occurred. The court found that the limitation period started when the applicant became aware of the damage or when they ought to have become aware of it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
After examining the evidence, the court concluded that the applicant's knowledge of the damage was not sufficient to trigger the limitation period. Consequently, the application for damages was dismissed. The court also appointed O'Neill Strata Management Pty Ltd as the compulsory strata managing agent of the owners corporation for a period of two years to ensure proper management of the strata scheme.
The court had to determine the specific point at which the applicant knew or ought to have known about the loss, which would trigger the commencement of the limitation period. The applicant argued that they only became aware of the damage when the owners corporation failed to respond to a notice to repair. The owners corporation, however, contended that the limitation period began when the damage first occurred. The court found that the limitation period started when the applicant became aware of the damage or when they ought to have become aware of it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
After examining the evidence, the court concluded that the applicant's knowledge of the damage was not sufficient to trigger the limitation period. Consequently, the application for damages was dismissed. The court also appointed O'Neill Strata Management Pty Ltd as the compulsory strata managing agent of the owners corporation for a period of two years to ensure proper management of the strata scheme.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Limitation Periods
-
Compulsory Appointment
-
Duty of Care
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
4
Arsalan v Rixon
[2021] HCA 40
Arsalan v Rixon
[2021] HCA 40
Clutha v Millar
[2002] NSWSC 362