Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Feletti v Eales; Eales v Feletti [2018] NSWCATCD 66 Hearing dates: 24 August 2018 Date of orders: 02 November 2018 Decision date: 02 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D A C Robertson, Senior Member Decision: Proceedings SC 18/21384
1. Application dismissed.
Proceedings SC 18/34455
1. Application dismissed.Catchwords: LAND LAW – strata title - by-laws – disturbing the peaceful occupation of another lot – objective test – breach not established – whether landlord under obligation to ensure tenants comply with by-laws – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of by-laws – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to restrain harassment by one lot owner of tenants of another lot owner Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)Cases Cited: Felcher v The Owners Strata Plan 2738 [2017] NSWCATAP 219
Gao v Agosti [2009] NSWCTTT 175
Nowak v Pellicciotti [2018] NSWCATAP 245
Nowak v Pellicciotti [2018] NSWCATCD 9
The Owners Strata Plan 50276 v Thoo [2013] NSWCA 270
Walsh v The Owners Strata Plan No 10349 [2017] NSWCATAP 230Category: Principal judgment Parties: SC 18/21384 Proceedings:
SC 18/34455 Proceedings:
Marie Feletti (Applicant)
Jonathon Eales, The Owners - Strata Plan No 2223, Lauren Rohrbeck and Shane Burgess (Respondents)
Jonathon Eales (Applicant)
Marie Feletti (Respondent)Representation: A Maroya (Counsel) (Ms Feletti)
K Christou (Managing Agent) (Mr Eales)
J Crittenden (Solicitor) (Owners Corporation)
File Number(s): SC 18/21384 and SC 18/34455 Publication restriction: Nil
reasons for decision
-
The two applications before me concern Strata Plan 2223, which is a block of apartments in Vaucluse.
-
By the first application, Ms Feletti, the owner and occupier of a unit in the Strata Plan, sought orders against: Mr Eales, the owner of the unit directly above hers; the Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 2223; and Ms Lauren Rohrbeck and Mr Shane Burgess, who were at the time of commencement of the application tenants of Mr Eales, concerning what Ms Feletti complains is excessive noise transmission from Mr Eales’ unit.
-
By the time of the hearing, Ms Rohrbeck and Mr Burgess had vacated the premises and, by consent of all parties, they were removed from the proceedings.
-
By her application Ms Feletti seeks orders:
1. An order, pursuant to ss 232 and 241 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), requiring the first respondent [Mr Eales] (and any tenants and/or other occupiers of [Mr Eales’ unit]) to keep the floor space of [that unit] covered or otherwise treated to an extent sufficient to prevent the transmission of noise that is likely to disturb the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of [Ms Feletti’s unit], in accordance with by-law 14 (‘Floor Coverings’) and by-law 1 (‘Noise’);
2. An order, pursuant to ss 232 and 241 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), requiring the second respondent [the Owners Corporation] to ensure that the common property between [Ms Feletti’s unit] and [Mr Eales’ unit] is…
Continue reading Feletti v Eales; Eales v Feletti
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Feletti v Eales; Eales v Feletti [2018] NSWCATCD 66
- Case
- [2018] NSWCATCD 66
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the landlord was under an obligation to ensure that his tenants complied with the strata by-laws. The court also needed to consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award damages for breach of by-laws and whether it had jurisdiction to restrain harassment by one lot owner of tenants of another lot owner. The court needed to balance the rights of lot owners to enjoy the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property with the rights of landlords to manage their property as they see fit.
The court found that the objective test for determining whether there had been a breach of the by-laws was not satisfied in this case. The court held that the landlord was not under an obligation to ensure that his tenants complied with the by-laws, as this would amount to an unwarranted interference with the landlord's rights to manage his property. The court also held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to award damages for breach of by-laws or to restrain harassment by one lot owner of tenants of another lot owner. The court found that these matters were outside the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and should be resolved through other legal remedies.
The court dismissed both applications, holding that Feletti had not established a breach of the by-laws and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to award damages or restrain harassment. The court emphasised the importance of lot owners resolving disputes through the mechanisms provided by the strata scheme, rather than seeking redress through the Tribunal or the courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
Proceedings SC 18/21384
1. Application dismissed.
Proceedings SC 18/34455
1. Application 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.