Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Maston v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 11784 [2020] NSWCATCD 18 Hearing dates: 01 August 2019 Date of orders: 28 January 2020 Decision date: 28 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Geoffrey Meadows, Senior Member Decision: The application is dismissed.
Catchwords: STRATA AND COMMUNITY SCHEMES — Repair of common property
Legislation Cited: Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: The Owners — Strata Plan No. 74835 v Pullicin; The Owners — Strata Plan No. 80412 v Vickery [2020] NSWCATAP 5
Pullicin v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 74835 [2019] NSWCATCD 17 July 2019
Shih & Oars v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 87879 [2018] NSWCATCD 74
The Owners — Strata Plan No. 30621 v Shum [2018] NSWCATAP 15
Shih v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 87879 [2019] NSWCATAP 263
Davenport v The Owners – Strata Plan 536; The Owners – Strata Plan 536 v Davenport [2018] NSWCATAP 301
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: James Maston (First Applicant)
Lunar Maston (Second Applicant)
The Owners—Strata Plan No. 11784 (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Le Page Lawyers (Applicant)
Chambers Russell Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): SC 19/16129 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
This application was lodged on 03 April 2019 by James and Lunar Maston as the owners of Lot 4 in Strata Plan No. 11784 seeking the following orders under s. 232 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (SSM Act):
That the Owners Corporation repair in a proper and skilful manner the following defects in the common property and their respective causes:
1.1 Water ponding on the concrete path adjacent to the external southern wall of the Applicants’ lot by implementation of the recommendations in the report of RHM Consultants Pty Ltd (“RHM report”) dated 2 August the 2018;
1.2 Removal of the spitter trains on the northern and southern masonry walls on the stairwell adjacent to the Applicants’ lot and application of grout to the voids in that area, as recommenced [sic] in the RHM report; and;
1.3 Repair the cavity flashing on the external wall of the Applicant’s lot.
That the Owners Corporation reinstate and/or replace the gate and adjoining fences at the entrance to the Applicants’ lot, by consultation and agreement with the Applicant’s with the design to be in keeping with the external appearance of the strata scheme.
For the purposes of the proper completion and certification of the repairs, that the Owners Corporation retain a properly qualified and experienced consultant to specify, to supervise and to certify the satisfactory completion of the repairs in favour of the Owners Corporation.
That the repair on each of the defects be commenced within four weeks of the making of these orders (if they are not previously commenced) and be completed and certified within four weeks of commencement or such other period as the Tribunal may order.”
-
By letter dated 07 May 2019, the respondent owners corporation’s solicitors wrote to the registrar…
-
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Maston v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 11784 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
- [2020] NSWCATCD 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's claim for repair of common property was valid and enforceable under the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996. The court needed to determine whether the applicant had standing to bring the claim and whether the claim was within the scope of the Act. The court also had to consider the procedural requirements for bringing such a claim, including whether the applicant had followed the correct notice and dispute resolution procedures.
The court held that the applicant did not have standing to bring the claim as the claim related to a dispute between the applicant and another lot owner, rather than a dispute between the applicant and the body corporate. The court further held that the claim was outside the scope of the Act as it did not relate to the repair or maintenance of common property. The court also found that the applicant had not followed the correct dispute resolution procedures and that the claim was therefore invalid. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application.
The court's decision was final and binding on the parties. The court dismissed the applicant's application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The court made no order as to costs between the applicant and another lot owner.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is 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.