Golding v Lusping Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Golding v Lusping Pty Ltd  [2019] QCAT 352

PARTIES: PAUL HENRY GOLDING

(applicant)

v

LUSPING PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL075-18

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – CONTROL OF PARTICULAR MATTERS – RESIDENTIAL – where the applicant entered into a residence contract in a retirement village – where subsequently general service charges increased by more than CPI – whether the increases greater than CPI were valid – whether contributions to the maintenance reserve fund were used for general service purposes – whether increased contributions to the maintenance reserve fund were authorised by special resolution – whether special resolution was necessary

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT GENERALLY – where the applicant claimed misleading or deceptive conduct on the part of the scheme operators – where the applicant claimed misrepresentation by silence or nondisclosure – whether the scheme operators failed to disclose material facts – where the scheme operators were unaware of the matters which the applicant claimed had not been disclosed

Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) s 5, s 7, s 8, s 12, s 19, s 21, s 86, s 100, s 106, s 107

Clifford v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 916

Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky [1992] FCA 557
Elevate NSW Pty Ltd v Canada Bay Private Hospital Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1248
Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW [2010] HCA 31
Australia Finance Limited [2010] HCA 31
Thompson and Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 246

Wheelahan & Anor v City of Casey & Ors [2013] VSC 316

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Butler McDermott Lawyers

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 22 November 2016 Mr Golding purchased a freehold title unit in Laurel Springs Retirement Village (‘the Village’) from a previous resident.

  2. The Village is made up of 16 bodies corporate comprising 76 freehold title units. On that day he signed a residence contract and service agreement with the scheme operator, Lusping Pty Ltd.

  3. As then required by the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) (‘the Act’), Lusping supplied Mr Golding with a Public Information Document (‘PID’).

  4. In November 2018 Mr Golding filed an application for a tribunal hearing of a retirement village dispute. He seeks orders that his residence contract and service agreement be set aside and a mortgage and caveat given the scheme operators under the residence contract be cancelled. He intends to continue to live at the Village, however.

  5. Mr Golding says in his application that the reasons he seeks those orders are:

    (a)Because the scheme operators…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Golding v Lusping 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
[2019] QCAT 352
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Golding, entered into a residence contract for a unit in a retirement village managed by Lusping Pty Ltd. After purchasing the unit, Golding noticed increases in general service charges that exceeded the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Golding challenged the validity of these increases and alleged that contributions to the maintenance reserve fund were used for general service charges rather than maintenance purposes. Golding also argued that the increases to the maintenance reserve fund were not authorised by a special resolution, which is required under the governing legislation. Additionally, Golding claimed that the scheme operators engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by not disclosing these matters when the contract was entered into.

The court was required to determine whether the increases in general service charges that exceeded the CPI were valid. The court also had to assess whether contributions to the maintenance reserve fund were used for general service purposes and whether these increases were authorised by a special resolution. Furthermore, the court needed to examine whether the scheme operators were liable for misleading or deceptive conduct by not disclosing these matters to Golding when the contract was entered into.

The court found that the increases in general service charges that exceeded the CPI were valid. It was determined that the contributions to the maintenance reserve fund were used for maintenance purposes rather than general service charges. The court also held that the increases to the maintenance reserve fund were authorised by a special resolution, as required by the legislation. Regarding the claim of misleading or deceptive conduct, the court found that the scheme operators were not liable because they were unaware of the matters Golding claimed had not been disclosed. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Golding's application was dismissed, and the increases in general service charges, as well as the contributions to the maintenance reserve fund, were found to be valid. The court held that the scheme operators were not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct due to their lack of awareness of the undisclosed matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.