MA v The Owners Strata Plan No 65870

The case before the court involved a dispute regarding the appointment of a compulsory strata manager for Strata Plan No 65870. The applicant, MA, sought the appointment of a compulsory strata manager to address what was alleged to be mismanagement and breaches of duty by the existing strata manager, the first respondent. The second respondent, Network Strata Services Pty Ltd, also sought to be appointed as the compulsory strata manager. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the grounds for the compulsory appointment of a strata manager were established and, if so, which of the two proposed managers should be appointed. The applicant argued that the existing strata manager had failed to properly account for monies held in trust, had mismanaged the strata scheme, and had breached their duties under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). The applicant also argued that the second respondent was more suited to the role due to their experience and qualifications.

The court considered the evidence presented and the requirements of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). The court found that the grounds for the compulsory appointment of a strata manager were indeed established due to the mismanagement and breaches of duty by the existing strata manager. The court also found that the second respondent, Network Strata Services Pty Ltd, was better suited to the role due to their relevant experience and qualifications. The court emphasised the importance of appointing a strata manager who could effectively address the issues within the strata scheme and restore proper management. The court ordered that Network Strata Services Pty Ltd be appointed as the strata managing agent for a period of 12 months, subject to the terms of the managing agency agreement. The court made no order regarding the costs of the proceedings but provided a process for any party to apply to vary the costs order. The court also set out a timeframe for any such application and response, with an option for an oral hearing if the parties did not consent to the application being determined on the papers.