McLean v Punch and the Owners - Strata Plan No 79132

[2025] NSWCATCD 38

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

McLean v Punch and The Owners – Strata Plan No 79132 [2025] NSWCATCD 38

Hearing dates:

28 January 2025

Date of orders:

2 June 2025

Decision date:

02 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

G Burton SC, Senior Member

Decision:

1   Application dismissed apart from orders made on 6 November 2024.

2   Make no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – compulsory strata manager - removal of strata committee – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 5, 237, 238, Sch 2 para 9

Legislation Cited:

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Anderson v Owners SP 61034 [2019] NSWCATAP 61

Bate v Owners SP 60549 [2018] NSWCATCD 36

Bischoff v Rita Sahade [2015] NSWCATAP 135

Brown v The Owners – Strata Plan No 82527 [2022] NSWCATAP 328

Co Funds Management PL v Owners SP 78945 [2011] NSWCTTT 488

Farland v Simmons [2018] NSWCATCD 28

Foong v Scutella [2021] NSWCATAP 225

Gershberg v Owners SP 5768 [2011] NSWCTTT 411

Hoare v Owners SP 73905 [2018] NSWCATCD 45

Kahn v Owners SP 2010 [2017] NSWCATAP 39

Kotevski v Seadon and Owners SP 82413 [2013] NSWCTTT 597

Linney v Owners SP 11669 [2021] NSCATCD 123

Lockrey v Rosewall [2022] NSWCATCD 27

McGrath v Owners SP 13631 [2022] NSWCATCD 60

Moallem v CTTT [2013] NSWSC 1700

Owners SP 14593 v Soares [2019] NSWCATAP 3

Owners SP 63341 v Malachite Holdings PL [2018] NSWCATAP 256

Owners SP 74698 v Jacinta Investments PL [2021] NSWCATAP 387

Robinson v Owners SP 61717 [2018] NSWCATCD 49

Unilodge Australia PL v Owners SP 54026 [2020] NSWCATCD

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Justin McLean (applicant)
Marnie Punch and The Owners – Strata Plan No 79132 (respondents)

Representation:

Applicant in person
Ms M Punch, secretary of strata committee (respondents)

File Number(s):

2024/00025941

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background, issues, procedural, partial consensual resolution

1. The applicant owns lot 1 and 30% of lot 2 (with his brother owning the rest of that lot) in a six-lot strata scheme registered 18 July 2007 in Engadine, in southern Sydney, NSW. It appeared from documentary reference in the evidence that the applicant may have been responsible for the subdivision and development that resulted in the strata scheme but was no longer an original owner with at least half of the aggregate unit entitlement of lots in the scheme so as to reduce his voting value by two-thirds: Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA) s 5(2A).

2. In these proceedings filed 22 January 2024 the applicant originally sought, under SSMA s 238, the removal of all members of the strata committee (SC) being the first respondent and the former second respondent Ms Jullianne Woods, and that there be no SC. He claimed that votes had been counted incorrectly in the SC election, with a biassed outcome, that nominations to the SC had been ignored, minutes had been altered and did not reflect the actual decision, and that there had been a closed-session AGM held in private.

3. In his evidence filed and served during 2024, the applicant further alleged as follows:

1. A screen, on which plants could grow, had been built on common property in September 2021 without approval that impeded lot 1’s outlook and the minutes of an EGM on 15 October 2021 had been amended to show passage of a special resolution to approve the screening when there was not the required majority for a special resolution.

2. Construction waste from works in 2022 in the first respondent’s lot 3 had been dumped in the scheme bins.

3. There had been no proper approval for the bathroom renovation works in lot 3 owned by the first respondent and other works in lot 5.

4. In relation to the lot 3 works, the SC at first purported to dispense with requiring a special resolution for a by-law, contrary to the advice of the strata manager that, since there was re-waterproofing, a special resolution was required. (Such advice appears to be correct under SSMA ss 108 and 111 and was not dispensed with under ss 109 and 110.)

5. The draft minutes of an EGM of 10 March 2023 incorrectly recorded a special resolution retroactively approving the lot 3 works until the applicant protested to the strata manager, the lot 1 and 2 voting sheets were included and the minutes were amended to record defeat of the special resolution.

6. There were irregularities in the running of an EGM in mid-2023 that was held behind closed doors, excluding the applicant.

7. There had been unauthorised destruction in June 2024 of mature plants in a garden bed by another lot owner.

8. In and around October 2024 and earlier the gardens and driveway near the applicant’s lot and on part of his lot had not been maintained when adjacent lots had had similar areas maintained without necessary distinction between lot property and common property.

9. There were difficult relations between him and the owners of the other four lots and allegations of abusive behaviour by him to other lot owners which he denied.

10. The strata scheme ran well without a strata committee and with delegation to the strata manager until the appointment of the SC at the 2020 AGM, and would do so again with a proper strata manager who held OC meetings when required. (At the 2023 AGM on 4 December 2023, the applicant voted with all lot owners present for termination of the then-current strata manager but also voted against the appointment of the proposed new strata manager, who was appointed on a simple majority vote for a period of 12 months.)

4. At the second directions hearing on 19 March 2024 to prepare the matter for final hearing, it was clarified that an order for the appointment of a compulsory strata manager under SSMA s 237 was sought, so the owners corporation (OC) was joined as third respondent. The current strata manager had replaced the previous strata manager only from the AGM in December 2023 and did not actually have the opportunity to undertake the role until the first part of 2024.

5. No other lot owner sought to be joined as an interested party.

6. At the final hearing it was clarified that the second respondent had resigned as an SC member and had not sought re-election at the AGM held on 5 December 2022.

7. That left the first respondent, who had completed her purchase of lot 3 on 20 September 2021 and was elected to the SC at the AGM on 11 November 2021, as the sole remaining SC member and from the 5 December 2022 AGM (re-elected 4 December 2023) as holder of all OC offices. At time of hearing she intended to stand for re-election at the then-upcoming AGM on 3 December 2024 with the expressed support (in the evidence) of the other three lot owners apart from the applicant, which I assume occurred and that she was elected. The first respondent at the hearing said that she was aware of no other nominations although nominations could be made orally at the AGM. She was authorised to represent the OC in these proceedings.

8. I raised with the applicant that SSMA s 238 involves the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal and that it would be futile to remove the first respondent, even if the decision could be made before the AGM which was unlikely. The AGM in effect would be a vote of confidence or no confidence whether or not the first respondent was now removed. The applicant then pressed only the claim under s 237. Claims for civil penalties, raised in the applicant’s documents, could not be pressed in the same proceedings and were not pressed: Brown v The Owners – Strata Plan No 82527 [2022] NSWCATAP 328.

9. The applicant sought to adduce further evidence about the complaints. That evidence had not been notified or given to the respondents but supported with photographs some of the alleged behaviour the subject of complaint, being the construction waste in scheme bins, the garden bed removal and garden maintenance. The applicant complained about the current “massacred” state of the garden bed adjacent to his lot compared with gardens adjacent to other lots. He made a similar allegation of favouritism in footpath maintenance and cleaning. Some of these areas were not common property but were maintained by the OC. During renovations the lot 5 owner had allegedly misused the rubbish bins.

10. I allowed the evidence because it appeared that the respondents could deal with it by supplementary oral evidence in chief which gave context to the matters about which the applicant complained and which in substance had appeared in earlier evidence.

11. In the course of the further evidence it emerged that the current garden maintenance contract proceeded on a basis of understanding that could be altered. The first respondent said that she was more than willing to instruct the contractor and take other steps to obtain OC approval at the upcoming AGM to meet the garden and driveway aspects of the applicant’s complaint. This led to an agreement between the parties on such matters.

12. At the conclusion of the hearing I made the following orders which included the partial consensual resolution recorded in order 5:

1. Correct the spelling of the applicant’s surname to McLean.

2. Remove Julianne Woods, the current second respondent, as a respondent.

3. Note the joinder of The Owners – Strata Plan 79132 as third respondent on 19 March 2024 and that the applicant seeks an order for appointment of a compulsory strata manager under s 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2016 (NSW) (SSMA).

4. Note that in light of the upcoming AGM on 3 December 2024 the applicant does not press in these proceedings an order for removal of the first respondent Ms Marnie Punch under SSMA s 238.

5. Note the agreement of the remaining parties as follows:

5.1 The owners corporation (OC) will, irrespective of whether it is common property in whole or part, maintain as part of the contracted garden maintenance the garden beds in the area bounded by the Lot 1 common property brick and timber wall, the street, the common property access on the left (viewed from the street) of Lot 1 and the Lot 1 driveway including the steps to the Lot 1 driveway.

5.2 The applicant and the first respondent will, at the AGM of the OC notified for 3 December 2024, vote to approve and seek other lot owners to approve a revised quotation for pressure cleaning that extends (irrespective of whether it is common property in whole or part or Council land) the Lot 1 driveway including the steps to the Lot 1 driveway and the pebblecrete area at the street end of the Lot 1 driveway.

6. The decision on the application under SSMA s 237 is reserved.

13. The consensual resolution was embodied in final orders. The remaining issue to be dealt with in these reasons is the claim for appointment of a compulsory strata manager.

14. On that issue, which overlapped in the evidence with the claim for removal of the remaining SC member being the first respondent and lot 3 owner, the respondents denied that any conduct of the scheme warranted the appointment of a compulsory strata manager, for reasons canvassed below. The respondents pointed to the aggressive tone of the communications from the applicant to the previous strata manager.

Relevant principles

15. SSMA s 37 provides “It is the duty of each member of a strata committee of an owners corporation to carry out his or her functions for the benefit, so far as practicable, of the owners corporation and with due care and diligence.” A note says that s 260 provides protection from personal liability for SC members who act in good faith in executing their functions.

16. SSMA s 237 provides as follows:

(1) Order appointing or requiring the appointment of strata managing agent to exercise functions of owners corporation The Tribunal may, on its own motion or on application, make an order appointing a person as a strata managing agent or requiring an owners corporation to appoint a person as a strata managing agent—

(a) to exercise all the functions of an owners corporation, or

(b) to exercise specified functions of an owners corporation, or

(c) to exercise all the functions other than specified functions of an owners corporation.

(2) Order may confer other functions on strata managing agent The Tribunal may also, when making an order under this section, order that the strata managing agent is to have and may exercise—

(a) all the functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or strata committee of the owners corporation, or

(b) specified functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or strata committee of the owners corporation, or

(c) all the functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or strata committee of the owners corporation other than specified functions.

(3) Circumstances in which order may be made The Tribunal may make an order only if satisfied that—

(a) the management of a strata scheme the subject of an application for an order under this Act or an appeal to the Tribunal is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily, or

(b) an owners corporation has failed to comply with a requirement imposed on the owners corporation by an order made under this Act, or

(c) an owners corporation has failed to perform one or more of its duties, or

(d) an owners corporation owes a judgment debt.

(4) Qualifications of person appointed A person appointed as a strata managing agent as a consequence of an order made by the Tribunal must— (a) hold a strata managing agent’s licence issued under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002, and

(b) have consented in writing to the appointment, which consent, in the case of a strata managing agent that is a corporation, may be given by the Secretary or other officer of the corporation or another person authorised by the corporation to do so.

(5) Terms and conditions of appointment A strata managing agent may be appointed as a consequence of an order under this section on the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration by the owners corporation and the duration of appointment) specified in the order making or directing the appointment.

(6) Return of documents and other records A strata managing agent appointed as a consequence of an order under this section must cause a general meeting of the owners corporation to be held not later than 14 days before the end of the agent’s appointment and must on or before that meeting make arrangements to return to the owners corporation all documents and other records of the owners corporation held by the agent.

(7) Revocation of certain appointments An order may be revoked or varied on application and, unless sooner revoked, ceases to have effect at the expiration of the period after its making (not exceeding 2 years) that is specified in the order.

(8) Persons who may make an application The following persons may make an application under this section—

(a) a person who obtained an order under this Act that imposed a duty on the owners corporation or on the strata committee or an officer of the owners corporation and that has not been complied with,

(b) a person having an estate or interest in a lot in the strata scheme concerned or, in the case of a leasehold strata scheme, in a lease of a lot in the scheme,

(c) the authority having the benefit of a positive covenant that imposes a duty on the owners corporation,

(d) a judgment creditor to whom the owners corporation owes a judgment debt.

17. SSMA s 238 relevantly provides as follows:

“(1) The Tribunal may, on its own motion or on application by an interested person, make any of the following orders:

(a) an order removing a person from a strata committee;

(b) an order prohibiting a strata committee from determining a specified matter and requiring the matter to be determined by resolution of the owners corporation;

(c) an order removing one or more of the officers of an owners corporation from office and from the strata committee.

(2) Without limiting the grounds on which the Tribunal may order the removal from office of a person, the Tribunal may remove a person if it is satisfied that the person has:

(a) failed to comply with this Act or the regulations or the by-laws of the strata scheme; or

(b) failed to exercise due care and diligence, or engaged in serious misconduct, while holding the office.”

An “interested person” is defined in s 226 relevantly to include a lot owner.

18. SSMA ss 237 and 238 give, by the word “may”, a discretion to the Tribunal which needs to be exercised on principled grounds and may lead to an appointment or a removal, respectively, not being made even if some conduct would satisfy the criteria in s 237 (or s 238): McGrath v Owners SP 13631 [2022] NSWCATCD 60.

19. The removal of a strata scheme officer under s 238 or the appointment of a compulsory strata manager under SSMA s 237 is not lightly done and similar principles apply, mostly derived from authority on s 237.

20. It is unlikely that principled grounds would lead to exercise of the discretion to remove an officer of the OC (chair, secretary, treasurer) or other elected member of the SC for isolated incidents, however important in themselves in terms of consequences, unless the incidents showed serious misconduct or dereliction of duty (including disobedience to Tribunal or Court orders) that justified overturning an elected outcome: Linney v Owners SP 11669 [2021] NSCATCD 123 at [94]; Lockrey v Rosewall [2022] NSWCATCD 27 at [15]-[16].

21. Equally, the appointment of a compulsory strata manager, like the removal of a strata scheme officer, is not lightly made and requires some dereliction of duty or dysfunction in operation of the scheme, usually not arising from an isolated incidence unless it showed serious misconduct or dereliction of duty (including disobedience to Tribunal or Court orders): see, eg, Kahn v Owners SP 2010 [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [30]; Owners SP 14593 v Soares [2019] NSWCATAP 3 at [44], [46]; Anderson v Owners SP 61034 [2019] NSWCATAP 61 at [41]-[42].

22. The aim of SSMA s 237 and s 238 and their predecessors in the 1996 Act is, where possible, to maintain a democratic system which the legislative scheme has established, rather than remove someone so elected or substitute a compulsory appointment as strata manager: Kahn v OC SP 2010 [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [30].

23. Focusing on SSMA s 237, it is not enough that the owners or groups or factions of them simply do not get along: Bischoff v Rita Sahade [2015] NSWCATAP 135. The evidence may show a properly functioning strata scheme in all practical respects despite any personal animosities or disagreements on the decisions made: Robinson v Owners SP 61717 [2018] NSWCATCD 49 at [53]-[58]; Anderson v Owners SP 61034 [2019] NSWCATAP 61 at [41]-[42]. Disagreement by a lot owner or a number of lot owners with the properly-made decisions of the SC or OC does not establish that the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily: Hoare v Owners SP 73905 [2018] NSWCATCD 45 at [202]. The same applies in the context of OC officers or other SC members.

24. However, if dispute becomes chronic, complex and/or litigious the trigger point may well have been reached: Moallem v CTTT [2013] NSWSC 1700 at [7]; Bate v Owners SP 60549 [2018] NSWCATCD 36 at [77]-[78]. This may also be the case where there is a clear and substantial dereliction in the duty of the SC and/or the strata manager to manage the scheme in accordance with statutory requirements and in the interests of all lot owners under SSMA s 9(2) and its statutory predecessors, without discrimination: Gershberg v Owners SP 5768 [2011] NSWCTTT 411; Owners SP 14593 v Soares [2019] NSWCATAP 3 at [44], [46].

25. Failure to engage or reasonably to act in accord with relevant expertise and advice, including the strata manager for voluntary members of a strata committee, may be a sufficient indicium: Co Funds Management PL v Owners SP 78945 [2011] NSWCTTT 488 at [27]-[28].

26. There may be a need for intervention to provide a “clean slate”, to re-establish proper functioning, and to facilitate non-repetition of dysfunctional conduct or non-compliance with statutory requirements (which in the case of a compulsory strata manager may require the maximum appointment period of two years): Kotevski v Seadon and Owners SP 82413 [2013] NSWCTTT 597 at [74]. For a compulsory strata manager, this may require continuation on a serial basis if the complexity of the mix of uses in the scheme, the size of the scheme or other ongoing management issues are present: Foong v Scutella [2021] NSWCATAP 225.

18. If a compulsory strata manager is appointed, it should be someone who, in addition to giving the statutory consents, will provide the necessary impartial management at least cost: Farland v Simmons [2018] NSWCATCD 28 at [45].

19. In the present proceedings, no invalidation of an election of an SC member was sought under SSMA s 24(2), nor of a resolution of the OC at a general meeting under s 25. There was no indication in the evidence that the procedure under SSMA Sch 2 para 9(3) was available and invoked for invalidating an SC decision by notifying that it was opposed before being made by lot owners with more than one-third of unit entitlements.

Consideration and conclusion

29. The first respondent was cross-examined on the irregularities in approval of her renovations and the conduct of lot 5 works, among other matters. She said to the effect that the works approvals by the SC rather than the OC was consistent with earlier works approvals even if mistaken and she was willing to obtain the correct approvals and take responsibility for maintenance and repair of the lot 3 alterations, for which she would require the co-operation of all lot owners since a special resolution was required, with resort to specific relief in the Tribunal as the final step. There was no evidence that the current strata manager had repeated the alleged administrative errors of an earlier strata manager. The security camera approvals, which the former second respondent found invasive, were before her time as was the screen which had been removed from September 2021. What the first respondent said was largely consistent in substance with her written submissions where she said that the proper approvals process was not explained to her by the then strata manager until an email of 27 July 2022, well after the SC approved the works in March 2022 and the renovations occurred in April and July 2022. Her photographs showed no screen.

30. In closing submissions the applicant said that he did not think that the current strata manager was independent, had made an inadequate response on the garden maintenance issue and did not helpfully interact.

31. The respondents submitted that it was common ground that the current strata manager, even if a longer term of 36 months was sought, would be re-appointed only for a maximum of 12-month terms which was an appropriate period for performance reviews. The owners of lots 3 to 6 (that is, all other lot owners) opposed the compulsory appointment. The quoted cost for the compulsory manager at $4,100pa as of 29 April 2024 was 45% higher than the current manager’s cost of $2,840pa, would result in increased levies and was not financially viable. The factors in SSMA s 237(3) justifying an appointment had not been made out on the evidence. The day to day management in any event at present fell to the first respondent and was well done by her to the expressed satisfaction of all lot owners other than the applicant.

32. The tenor of communications in evidence and of the applicant’s submissions inferred that there was mistrust and a history of felt grievance between the family who owned lots 1 and 2 (one-third of the lots), who had developed the scheme and lived in the house (lot 1, being the largest lot physically but with the same unit entitlement as other lots) and the other four lots. For example, the 2019 AGM minutes, before the advent of the SC in 2020 and under the earlier strata manager who was replaced at the AGM in late 2023, was not attended by the applicant or his family and saw a number of motions passed unanimously by the three of the lot owners present personally or by proxy directed at the applicant and his co-owner to remove signage, screen a bathroom window that faced other lots, carry out repairs, painting and gardening and remove rubbish; another resolution permitted security cameras at a lot owner’s expense but restricted to monitoring the relevant lot and immediate surrounds. This was reflected in the applicant’s submissions where the target at times was not the current strata manager but, rather, the strata manager allegedly being misled by other lot owners. The applicant’s communications with the strata manager were in vigorous language with swearing built-in and vividly expressed his frustration with what was happening in the scheme.

33. The communications also showed correction where there had been procedural irregularity; for example, on the screen being erected prior to meeting approval and on the amendment of the EGM minutes on the lot 3 works resolution in 2023.

34. However, as the agreement during the hearing showed, when the parties were required or needed actually to listen to and hear each other, a way forward could be achieved. As the case law cited earlier states, lot owners do not need to like each other so long as they can co-operate.

35. The evidence did not demonstrate the required level of present dysfunctionality (whatever the past position, on which a concluded view is not required) for the appointment of a majority strata manager. This was reinforced by the rational opposition from a two-thirds majority of lot owners in a small strata scheme where the financial impact of the appointment on levies could be marked. There was no objective evidence that meeting and other procedures and operations under the administration of the current strata manager were other than normal. Much of the contentious matter canvassed was historical and involved the preceding strata manager, on whose conduct no finding needs to be made or should be made in this application and who is not the subject of negative comment in the findings in these reasons, nor is the conduct of the present strata manager. While there was no functioning strata committee apart from the first respondent, with an outbreak of better communication it remained to be tested whether other lot owners would be willing to engage by election to complete a new SC and the majority of other lot owners supported the efforts of the first respondent. The issue of current angst concerning differential gardening and driveway cleaning was resolved consensually after rational consideration.

36. There is also no utility in appointing a compulsory strata manager if there are other ways to resolve matters.

37. To illustrate: the applicant appeared to envisage a compulsory strata manager to replace the SC and exercise its powers but not to replace the powers of lot owners in general meetings, which is where appropriate actions and relief to resolve the major complaints centred.

38. What one has in this scheme was ownership which, on present relations and voting patterns, resulted in: an OC being able to pass ordinary resolutions if the simple majority of three or four lot owners wished the resolution passed; the applicant’s lots being able to block any matter for which a special resolution was required; the applicant’s lots not being able to negate SC decisions approved by the three or four other lot owners represented on an SC under SSMA Sch 2 para 9(3) since the applicant’s unit entitlements did not exceed one-third.

39. Again to illustrate: at an EGM on 29 September 2022 the ordinary resolutions to remove the first respondent from the SC, to engage a private certifier in respect of the lot 3 works and to require the lot 3 owner to start the special resolution process for the works were defeated by the other lot owners. Then at an EGM on 10 March 2023 a special resolution for a by-law for the lot 3 works (with the usual conditions concerning the lot’s responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the renovations and associated common property and for the OC’s costs in connection with approving the by-law) was originally minuted by the preceding strata manager as having passed on the unanimous vote of the two lot owners who were financial and present (the first respondent was recorded as not financial with $58.17 outstanding), with the applicant’s lots not recorded as present: see definition of “special resolution” in SSMA s 5. On the applicant’s protest the amended minutes recorded lot 5 not present, the others present but lot 3 not financial and the vote tied so the special resolution did not pass. (The applicant’s nomination for the SC was said unable to be corrected as there was no indication as to the attitude of the meeting.) This repeated the result on a similar resolution at the December 2022 AGM.

40. In that circumstance, if repeated with the first respondent’s acceptance in cross-examination to engage in correct procedures, a renewed special resolution would either have a fresh vote by lot owners or, if a compulsory strata manager was appointed with global powers, would place the strata manager in an invidious position, when an alternative within the SSMA that preserved the self-government object of the SSMA was available. That alternative was either to resolve the dispute between the parties with the passage of an appropriate special resolution containing the usual financial responsibility provisions (which may not on rational consideration be further opposed – the applicant’s complaint appeared to be in large part that proper procedures were not followed) or for the first respondent (and any other lot owner with renovations in the same situation) to invoke other provisions of the SSMA such as s 149 to seek registration of the by-law.

41. In summary, I consider that, on the evidence, the application to appoint a compulsory strata manager was at best premature and with a potential window for co-operation, and the availability for other statutory avenues to resolve disputes where co-operation could not achieve a consensual resolution, might not re-emerge.

42. The present application for appointment of a compulsory strata manager should therefore be dismissed. The orders made at the hearing, including those made by consent, remain in place.

Costs

43. There was no leave sought for legal representation. The parties were self-represented. No party sought a further opportunity to argue costs. The nature of the proceedings would require the establishment of special circumstances under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), which was not sought to be done and were not apparent.

Orders

44. I make the following orders:

1. Application dismissed apart from orders made on 6 November 2024.

2. Make no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 01 August 2025