Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd - [2016] NSWCATCD 55

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 55
Hearing dates: 26 July 2016
Date of orders: 28 July 2016
Decision date: 28 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: K Ross, General Member
Decision:
On 26 July 2016 the following orders were made:
1. Pursuant to ss 156 and 157, and in order to resolve a dispute between the parties the Tribunal orders that, in accordance with s 67 (2) the increase in site fees referred to in the letter dated 15 April 2016 is not payable because the notice does not comply with s 67 (4).
Legislation Cited: Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jill Edmonds (applicant)
Paultrus Pty Ltd (respondent)
Representation:
File Number(s): RC 16/24887RC 16/22676
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

The applicant seeks an order under s 157(1)(b) of the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 (‘RC Act’), that the site increase in the notice dated 15 April 2016 is not payable on the basis that the notice does not comply with the requirements of s 67(4), because it did not contain an explanation for the increase, and because, she alleges, the explanation later provided was not genuine, and was misleading and deceptive. In addition the applicant argues that the letter of explanation cannot validate the notice of site increase which was found by the Tribunal on 11 May 2016 not to contain an explanation for the increase as required by s 67(4)(c).
The respondent argues that the application is misconceived as the Tribunal has determined the matter. The respondent says that the Tribunal did not declare the notice to be invalid, but ordered the respondent to provide an explanation for the increase. The respondent says that it has complied with that order. The applicant is estopped from having the Tribunal redetermine the issue. The respondent says that it will suffer particular disadvantage if the Tribunal is now to make the order sought by the applicant. If that order had been sought on 11 May 2016 and granted by the Tribunal, the respondent could have served a fresh notice then. If the order is made now, the respondent has lost a period of 2 1/2 months in increased site fees. In response the applicant says that her application is in response to the respondent's letter which did not cure the defect in the notice. Accordingly she is entitled to seek an order that the increase is not payable.

Facts

The facts in this matter are not contested. On 15 April 2016 the respondent gave the applicant, along with other residents in its parks, a notice of site fee increase. The letter stated "We wish to advise you that on 17 June 2016 the rent of the premises occupied by you, will be increased to $163.00 per week. We have assessed various issues as they impact the community since the last increase and determined that the site fees be increased as set…

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 Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd 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: [2016] NSWCATCD 55
Decision Date: 28 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd concerns a dispute between a tenant and a landlord regarding an increase in site fees. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT). The tenant, Mr. Edmonds, sought a review of a decision by the landlord, Paultrus Pty Ltd, to increase site fees, arguing that the notice of the increase did not comply with the relevant statutory requirements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the landlord's notice of the increase in site fees was compliant with the statutory requirements outlined in the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine if the notice provided by the landlord met the criteria set out in section 67(4) of the relevant statute. If the notice was found to be non-compliant, the Tribunal had to decide if the increase in site fees was enforceable.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal examined the contents of the notice provided by the landlord. It found that the notice did not include all the information required by section 67(4) of the relevant statute. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was not compliant. As a result, the increase in site fees was deemed not payable. The Tribunal's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the specific requirements for notice under the law.

The Tribunal ordered that the increase in site fees was not payable because the notice did not comply with the statutory requirements. This outcome was in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute, which stipulates that an increase in site fees cannot be enforced if the notice does not meet the necessary legal criteria. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with statutory notice requirements in rental disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

On 26 July 2016 the following orders were made:

1. Pursuant to ss 156 and 157, and in order to resolve a dispute between the parties the Tribunal orders that, in accordance with s 67 (2) the increase in site fees referred to in the letter dated 15 April 2016 is not payable because the notice does not comply with s 67 (4).

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:	Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 55
Hearing dates:	26 July 2016
Date of orders:	28 July 2016
Decision date:	28 July 2016
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	K Ross, General Member
Decision:	On 26 July 2016 the following orders were made: 1. Pursuant to ss 156 and 157, and in order to resolve a dispute between the parties the Tribunal orders that, in accordance with s 67 (2) the increase in site fees referred to in the letter dated 15 April 2016 is not payable because the notice does not comply with s 67 (4).
Legislation Cited:	Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Jill Edmonds (applicant) Paultrus Pty Ltd (respondent)
Representation:
File Number(s):	RC 16/24887RC 16/22676
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted