Feng v Up 840 (Appeal)

In the appeal case of Feng v Up 840, the appellants, Adam Feng and Karen Feng, sought to challenge the decision made by the Original Tribunal on 21 March 2022, which dismissed their applications in unit title and civil proceedings. The appeal was filed on 11 April 2022, and the appellants sought leave for the Appeal Tribunal to receive additional evidence, beyond what was presented at the first instance. This request was accompanied by submissions dated 6 June 2022, which outlined their grievances and the perceived errors in the Original Decision. The tribunal's appellate jurisdiction is governed by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, which mandates that an appellant must demonstrate an error of fact, law, or discretion by the Original Tribunal that materially affected the outcome.

The appellants raised several grounds of appeal, each focusing on different alleged errors made by the Original Tribunal. Ground 1 concerned Ms Feng's authority to communicate with the Owners Corporation and the strata manager, with the appellants arguing that the Original Tribunal erred in finding that proper authorisation was necessary for Ms Feng to deal with these matters. Ground 2 addressed the issue of changes to correspondence, where the appellants claimed that the Original Tribunal failed to find that the strata manager had sent relevant documents to Mr Feng's personal email address instead of his nominated postal address. Ground 3 pertained to fence spending in 2013, where the appellants argued that the Original Tribunal erred in its findings regarding expenses incurred on a fence separating common property from individual units.

After reviewing the submissions and evidence presented, the tribunal found that the appellants had not established any material error of fact, law, or discretion by the Original Tribunal that would warrant a different outcome. The tribunal refused the appellants' application for leave to receive further evidence and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal granted leave for certain documents to be admitted into evidence in the appeal as Exhibit 1 but ultimately upheld the decision of the Original Tribunal.