Colman v The Owners - Strata Plan 61131

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Colman v The Owners – Strata Plan 61131 [2025] NSWCA 203
Hearing dates: 26 August 2025
Date of orders: 4 September 2025
Decision date: 04 September 2025
Before: Stern JA; Price AJA
Decision:

(1)   The summons filed by Mr Colman on 22 May 2025 seeking leave to appeal from the orders of Kirk J on 20 February 2025 is dismissed.

(2)   The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — application for leave to appeal — whether primary judge constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction in determining whether the respondent had breached its obligations under s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) — where none of the applicant’s contentions of error identified any arguable constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by primary judge — where applicant therefore failed to identify issue of principle, question of public importance or reasonably clear injustice going beyond something merely arguable — where leave to appeal refused with costs

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 80, 83(1)

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), ss 9, 106, 232

Cases Cited:

Colman v The Owners – Strata Plan 61131 [2023] NSWCATAP 308

Colman v The Owners – Strata Plan 61131 [2025] NSWSC 63

CZA19 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia (2021) 285 FCR 447; [2021] FCAFC 57

Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2021] NSWCA 71

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088

Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (2021) 106 NSWLR 520; [2021] NSWCA 299

Ming v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2022) 109 NSWLR 604; [2022] NSWCA 209

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gary Colman (Applicant)
The Owners – Strata Plan 61131 (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G Colman (in person)
DF Elliott (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/100515
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2025] NSWSC 63

Date of Decision:
20 February 2025
Before:
Kirk J
File Number(s):
2023/454959

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: The applicant, Mr Gary Colman, is the owner of Lot 147 in a strata scheme at a residential building in Pyrmont, NSW, known as the Palladium. Lot 147 is an apartment on level 10 of the Palladium and Mr Colman’s title includes a rooftop terrace on level 11, comprising a western and eastern terrace. There are also common property areas on level 11. The respondent is the owners corporation of the strata scheme for the Palladium under s 9 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSM Act). The dispute giving rise to these proceedings relates to requests made by Mr Colman in 2019 and 2020 for approval of building works to be carried out on the terrace of Lot 147, some of which affected common property.

  2. Some of these requests were approved but an application dated 7 January 2020 by Mr Colman for approval of building…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Colman v The Owners - Strata Plan 61131 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
[2025] NSWCA 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Colman, sought leave to appeal from orders made by Kirk J on 20 February 2025. The dispute concerned whether the respondent, The Owners - Strata Plan 61131, had breached its obligations under section 106 of the *Strata Schemes Management Act 2015* (NSW). The application for leave to appeal was heard by Stern JA and Price AJA in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction in determining the alleged breach of section 106. Mr Colman contended that the primary judge's decision constituted such a failure.

The Court of Appeal found that none of the applicant's contentions of error identified any arguable constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by the primary judge. Consequently, Mr Colman failed to identify an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice that went beyond something merely arguable.

Accordingly, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The summons filed by Mr Colman on 22 May 2025 seeking leave to appeal from the orders of Kirk J on 20 February 2025 is dismissed.

(2) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

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.