Ren v Strata Corporation 12753 Inc

Bleby Ex Tempore J considered an application for a stay of orders made by the Court of Appeal, pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant, Ren, sought the stay against Strata Corporation 12753 Inc. The dispute concerned whether the erection of internal walls within a unit constituted "prescribed work" under section 29 of the relevant Act, requiring authorisation from the strata corporation. The Court of Appeal had previously found that the internal walls were indeed prescribed work and that the applicant had breached the Act by carrying them out without the necessary special resolution.

The primary legal issue before Bleby Ex Tempore J was whether to grant a stay of the Court of Appeal's orders. This required an assessment of the applicant's prospects of success on her special leave application to the High Court, balanced against the potential burdens on both parties. The applicant argued that the internal walls did not alter the external appearance of the building and were temporary, thus not constituting a "structure" or "alteration of a building" as defined by section 29.

Bleby Ex Tempore J reasoned that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted section 29, holding that permanency was not a requirement for work to be considered an alteration or erection of a structure. The Court of Appeal had found that the installation of stud walls was sufficient to constitute prescribed work, and that there was overwhelming evidence of a breach of the Act. Consequently, Bleby Ex Tempore J concluded that the applicant's prospects of success on her special leave application were negligible, and this factor strongly outweighed any considerations favouring the applicant, such as the burden of immediate remediation.

The application for a stay was refused. The respondent sought indemnity costs or a lump sum in lieu, based on a letter from its solicitors warning of an intention to seek indemnity costs if the application was pursued. Bleby Ex Tempore J was satisfied that the letter established a basis for indemnity costs but ultimately ordered the applicant to pay the respondent a fixed sum of $7,000 for the costs of the stay application.