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
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
On 22 November 2016 Mr Golding purchased a freehold title unit in Laurel Springs Retirement Village (‘the Village’) from a previous resident.
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.
As then required by the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) (‘the Act’), Lusping supplied Mr Golding with a Public Information Document (‘PID’).
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.
Mr Golding says in his application that the reasons he seeks those orders are:
(a)Because the scheme operators…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QCAT 352
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.