Rampala v The Owners - Units Plan 1330 - [2018] ACAT 35

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

RAMPALA v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 1330 (Unit Titles) [2018] ACAT 35

UT 24/2017
Catchwords: UNIT TITLES – merits review of motions from the annual general meeting of an owners corporation – applicant seeking the appointment of an alternative strata manager – correct or preferable decision – respondent seeks ‘costs thrown away’ in preparing responses to a number of matters that were raised by the applicant prior to the hearing, but were then abandoned at the hearing – what is unreasonable delay or obstruction

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administration Act 2008 ss 6, 7, 32, 48
Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 s 129

Cases cited:Appellants v Council of the Law Society of the ACT and the Legal Practitioner [2011] ACTSC 133
Barker v Plunkett & Anor trading as M & J Plunkett Builders [2018] ACAT 9
Bell v Decastella & Rob Decastella’s Smartstart For Kids Ltd [2013] ACAT 66
Brudenall & Ors v Owners Corporation Units Plan No. 202 [2016] ACAT 101
Carew-Neill v Bower [2016] ACAT 54
CIC v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2013] ACTSC 96
In the Matter of the Ruling Tribunal Section 31 of the Unit Tiles (Management) Act 2011 [2017] ACAT 56
Maylor (No 2) v Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118
Queensland Building Services Authority v Meredith [2010] QCATA 50
ReLobo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 116 ALD 639
ReZheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 121 ALD 372
Shi v Migration Agents Authority (2008) 248 ALR 390
Smith v J&C Whyte Family Trust & Anor [2016] ACAT 132
The Owners, Unit Plan 840 v Richardson [2015] ACAT 77
Uren & Anor v the Owners – Unit Plan No 396 [2017] ACAT 51

Tribunal:                   Senior Member H Robinson
Date of Orders:  9 March 2018 and 28 March 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision:         28 March 2018
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          UT 24/2017

BETWEEN:
CHANDRA RAMPALA
Applicant

AND:
THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 1330
Respondent

TRIBUNAL: Senior Member H Robinson

DATE:9 March 2018
CORRECTED ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.Application is dismissed.
2.Application for costs reserved.

The Tribunal notes:
For the avoidance of doubt, the owners corporation must ensure that necessary insurance policies are adjusted from time to time and the Executive Committee (or its delegate) is to ensure that building insurance is considered at each annual general meeting as required by clause 2.3 of Part 2.1 of Schedule 2 of the UTM Act so that members may be satisfied that appropriate insurance arrangements are in place.

…………………..………..
Senior Member H Robinson
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) UT 24/2017

BETWEEN:
CHANDRA RAMPALA
Applicant

AND:
THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 1330
Respondent

TRIBUNAL: Senior Member H Robinson

DATE:28 March 2018
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The application for costs is dismissed.

…………………………….
Senior Member H Robinson

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.By way of this application, Mr Rampala (the applicant

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rampala v The Owners - Units Plan 1330 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] ACAT 35
Decision Date: 9 March 2018 and 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rampala v The Owners – Units Plan 1330 involved a dispute concerning the administration of a unit title scheme in New South Wales. The applicant, Rampala, sought an order for the owners to pay certain costs associated with the administration of the unit title. The dispute was heard by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Unit Titles Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the owners were liable to pay the costs sought by the applicant. The Tribunal was required to consider the relevant statutory provisions, including the Unit Title Act 1998, and any applicable case law. The Tribunal also had to consider the nature of the costs sought by the applicant and whether they were reasonable and necessary for the administration of the unit title.

The Tribunal found that the owners were not liable to pay the costs sought by the applicant. The Tribunal held that the costs sought were not necessary for the administration of the unit title and were not reasonable. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim for costs. The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs.

The Tribunal's decision provides useful guidance for unit title owners and administrators regarding the circumstances in which costs may be sought from owners. It highlights the importance of providing clear and detailed evidence to support claims for costs, and the need for costs to be reasonable and necessary for the administration of the unit title.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The application for costs 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.