Owners Units Plan No 783 v Hausfeld

The case of Owners Units Plan No 783 v Hausfeld involved a dispute regarding the legal actions taken by an owners corporation. The applicants sought to have the legal action taken by the committee struck out, alleging that it failed to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Trusts and Mortgages Act (UTM Act). Specifically, the applicants argued that the committee did not comply with clause 2.5 of schedule 2 of the UTM Act, which requires a cost estimate from the corporation's legal representative before initiating legal proceedings. The first respondent argued that the term "legal representative" in clause 2.5(2)(b) should refer only to a practitioner, and that the definition of "costs" should mean the costs payable to a practitioner. However, the court disagreed with these submissions.

The court held that the term "legal representative" should not be interpreted narrowly to only include practitioners. It found that a legal representative could be a person acting under a power of attorney or through appointment as a guardian, and that requiring a party to appoint only a practitioner to act for it in such disputes would be unduly restrictive. The court also held that the definition of "costs" should not be limited to costs payable to a practitioner, as the term "legal" in defining the costs and disbursements should be taken to mean the costs incurred by the owners corporation for its legal representation for the legal action.

As a result, the application for striking out was dismissed. The Tribunal ordered that the applicants were to file and serve the statement of any witnesses to be called, any further outline of submissions, and a list of any authorities relied upon by 25 August 2014. The respondents were to do the same by 8 September 2014. The matter was to be set down for hearing on a date to be notified to the parties by the registry.