Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Keddis v The Owners - Strata Plan No 20198 [2024] NSWCATCD 51 Hearing dates: 23 August 2024 Date of orders: 03 September 2024 Decision date: 03 September 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member Decision: 1 Proceedings 2023/00377627 are dismissed.
2 Proceedings 2024/00065655 are dismissed.
3 There is no order as to the costs of proceedings 2023/00377627 and proceedings 2024/00065655.
4 If the respondent makes an application to vary order (3) above in the manner and within the time specified in order 4(a) below, order (3) above ceases to have effect and the following directions apply:
(a) the respondent is to lodge and serve a costs application, including submissions limited to three pages and which are to address the question of whether a hearing may be dispensed with, and any evidence in support, by 17 September 2024;
(b) the applicant is to lodge and serve any submissions limited to three pages and which are to address the question of whether a hearing may be dispensed with, and any evidence in opposition, by 1 October 2024;
(c) the respondent is to lodge any submissions in reply limited to two pages by 8 October 2024.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Time limits – Application for an extension of time to commence proceedings – Applicable principles – Application in part dismissed
LAND LAW - Strata schemes — Appointment of compulsory strata manager — Whether grounds for compulsory appointment are established - Application in part dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 28, 29, 30, 36, 38, 41, 60
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW), r 23
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 36(1)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 169, 174
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW), s 80D (repealed)
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), ss 9, 13, 23, 24, 37, 103, 106, 108, 136, 139, 141, 150, 227, 232, 237, 240, Sch 1, cll 4, 8, 15, 17, 22
Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW), cll 14A, 26
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151D(2)
Cases Cited: 2 Elizabeth Bay Road Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 73943 (2014) 88 NSWLR 488; [2014] NSWCA 409
Blondel v The Owners – SP 37248 (unreported, proceedings 2022/00399150, 25 July 2024)
Cooper v The Owners – Strata Plan No 58068 (2020) 103 NSWLR 160; [2020] NSWCA 250
Coscuez International Pty Ltd v The Owners-Strata Plan No 46433 [2022] NSWCATAP 147
Foo v Frew [2023] NSWCATAP 303
Itex Graphix Pty Limited v Elliott (2002) 54 NSWLR 104; [2002] NSWCA 104
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2015] NSWCATAP 281
Steak Plains Olive Farm Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2015] NSWSC 289
The Owners Strata Plan 50276 v Thoo [2013] NSWCA 270; (2013) 17 BPR 33,789
The Owners Strata Plan No 57164 v Yau (2017) 96 NSWLR…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Keddis v The Owners - Strata Plan No 20198 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
- [2024] NSWCATCD 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were twofold. First, whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time to commence the proceedings. Second, whether the evidence supported the compulsory appointment of a strata manager. The court needed to determine if the applicant's arguments had merit and whether the dismissals and refusals were justified.
In its decision, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a justifiable reason for the delay in commencing the proceedings, and therefore dismissed the application for an extension of time. Regarding the compulsory appointment of a strata manager, the court held that the applicant had not established the necessary grounds for such an appointment. Consequently, the application was dismissed in part. The court also set out specific directions for any future costs application by the respondent, allowing for a streamlined process to address the question of whether a hearing may be dispensed with.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 Proceedings 2023/00377627 are dismissed.
2 Proceedings 2024/00065655 are dismissed.
3 There is no order as to the costs of proceedings 2023/00377627 and proceedings 2024/00065655.
4 If the respondent makes an application to vary order (3) above in the manner and within the time specified in order 4(a) below, order (3) above ceases to have effect and the following directions apply:
(a) the respondent is to lodge and serve a costs application, including submissions limited to three pages and which are to address the question of whether a hearing may be dispensed with, and any evidence in support, by 17 September 2024;
(b) the applicant is to lodge and serve any submissions limited to three pages and which are to address the question of whether a hearing may be dispensed with, and any evidence in opposition, by 1 October 2024;
(c) the respondent is to lodge any submissions in reply limited to two pages by 8 October 2024.
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.