Melloy v The Body Corporate for the Rocks Resort CTS 9435
[2016] QCATA 164
•14 October 2016
CITATION: | Melloy v The Body Corporate for the Rocks Resort CTS 9435 [2016] QCATA 164 | ||
PARTIES: | Gregory Robert Melloy | ||
| v (Respondent) | |||
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL170 -16 | ||
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals | ||
HEARING DATE: | On the papers | ||
HEARD AT: | Brisbane | ||
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM | ||
DELIVERED ON: | 14 October 2016 | ||
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane | ||
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for extension of time filed on 2 August 2016 is refused. 2. The application to join Anthony Merlo filed on 21 July 2016 is granted. 3. The application to join Thomas Joseph Burke filed on 21 July 2016 is refused. | ||
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – REAL PROPERTY – STRATA AND RELATED TITLES – MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL – BODY CORPORATE: POWERS DUTIES AND LIABILITIES – OTHER CASES – where proceeding in tribunal resulted on costs order – where application for disclosure of documents relating to decisions in proceeding and costs of proceeding – where interim order refusing access – where final order refusing access – where appeal – where application to join additional parties – where application for extension of time to file material | ||
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Body Corporate for the Rocks Resort CTS 9435 has been engaged in a long-running dispute in this tribunal with the resident manager, Peterson Management Services Pty Ltd. On 11 February 2016, the tribunal made a final order in this dispute: by consent, that the Body Corporate pay Peterson’s costs of the proceeding fixed at $150,000.
It appears that the parties are, or were, negotiating that order. Members of the committee wanted unrestricted access to body corporate records that relate to instructions given to the body corporate’s legal advisors, advice given by the legal advisors, and any information relevant to the claim for costs to enable them to make an informed decision prior to an extraordinary general meeting. On 6 May 2016, an Adjudicator appointed by the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management refused an application for an interim order compelling disclosure of those documents.
Mr Melloy appealed that order. Mr Melloy then made a number of interim applications. These reasons relate to my decisions on those interim applications.
Application to extend time
On 2 August 2016, Mr Melloy filed an application to extend the time for filing his submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal.
I am not minded to accede to this request. The dispute has been in the tribunal since 2010. It is time for the parties to put this behind them.
The directions made on 21 July 2016 gave Mr Melloy until 14 September 2016 to file and serve his submissions. Mr Melloy wanted an extension because of family commitments; a holiday, a family wedding, the birth and baptism of a grandchild. As important as those events may be to Mr Melloy personally, they do not explain why a period of over six weeks is not enough time for Mr Melloy to file and serve submissions.
Mr Melloy says that a period of 20 days for any interested person to consider whether to join the appeal is insufficient. I do not agree. An interested person is not required to formulate a detailed response within that period. All that is required is for the person to indicate an intention to be a party to the appeal.
Mr Melloy also submitted to the tribunal that he had a long-standing four-week holiday booked from the second week of August, and he wanted time to cross check material and write submissions outside this holiday period. Again, given this dispute has been before the tribunal for six years, the final resolution of all matters should be given priority.
The application to join Anthony Merlo
Mr Merlo filed a submission in the proceeding before the Adjudicator. He is an interested person and should be permitted to join this appeal.
The application to join Thomas Burke
While Mr Burke is a lot owner in the Rocks Resort, and therefore technically an aggrieved person, he did not participate in the proceeding before the Adjudicator. He should not be permitted to join at this late stage, having shown no interest in the proceeding below.
0
0
0