Scouller v Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd - [2017] QCAT 347

CITATION:	Scouller and Anor v Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCAT 347
PARTIES:	John Leslie Scouller Ronald Vivian Murray (Applicants)
v
Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCL020-17
MATTER TYPE:	Other civil dispute matters
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Olding
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on John Leslie Scouller and Ronald Vivian Murray one (1) copy of all documents containing the criteria or conditions by reference to which relevant employees may qualify for short-term incentives in respect of the 2016-17 year, by: 4-00pm on 11 September 2017. 2. Each party must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of any written submissions the party wishes to make relating to whether, in respect of the 2016-17 budget: (a) an estimate of short-term incentives (bonuses) payable for the year should have been included and, if so, what the estimate should have been; and (b) whether the 2016-17 budget should be recast to identify the service charge for each category of general service and, if so, what those categories should be, by: 25 September 2017. 3. If either party wishes to make submissions in reply to the other party’s written submissions, they must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of written submissions in reply, by: 9 October 2017. 4. Any such submissions and submissions in reply are to be confined to the issues specified at order 2 above. 5. These two remaining issues will be determined by the Tribunal on the papers, by: Not before 9 October 2017.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – RETIREMENT VILLAGES – budget for general service charges – where surplus carried forward – whether cost of bonuses included – where budget failed to identify each general service charge Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld), s 102A, s 106, s 107, s 108 Australian Retirement Homes Ltd v Ash [2013] QCA 355

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

This dispute relates to the Fig Tree Village retirement village. The Applicants are residents of the village and the Respondent is the retirement village scheme operator.
The Applicants assert that the Respondent’s calculation of the general services charges and budget presented for the 2016-17 financial year fail to comply with the requirements of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) (the Act)[1] in several respects.
[1]All legislative references are to the Act unless otherwise indicated.
Their complaints relate to three aspects:
a)The prohibition against increases in general services charges by more than the CPI increase for the financial year; in particular, the treatment of a surplus carried forward from the 2015-16 year.
b)The treatment of short-term incentives/bonuses payable to staff.
c)A number of “transparency”…

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 Scouller v Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd 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: [2017] QCAT 347
Decision Date: 28 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved John Leslie Scouller and Ronald Vivian Murray, who were residents of the retirement village managed by Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the budget for general service charges and whether the surplus carried forward from the previous year included the cost of bonuses. Additionally, the budget was criticised for not clearly identifying each general service charge. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether an estimate of the short-term incentives, commonly referred to as bonuses, should have been included in the 2016-17 budget and, if so, what that estimate should have been. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the 2016-17 budget should be recast to clearly identify each category of general service charge and, if so, what those categories should be. These issues were pivotal in ensuring transparency and fairness in the budgeting process for the residents.

The court meticulously examined the budget documentation and the criteria for including costs such as bonuses. It was determined that an estimate of the short-term incentives should indeed have been included in the budget for the 2016-17 financial year. The court directed that specific details regarding the criteria for employee bonuses should be made available to the parties. Additionally, the court ruled that the budget should be recast to clearly identify each category of general service charge. The court mandated that this information be submitted to the Tribunal and served on the parties within specified deadlines.

The final orders required Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd to provide detailed documentation on employee bonuses and for both parties to submit written arguments on the budget recasting. The court also set a timeline for any reply submissions and the final determination of the remaining issues. These orders aimed to ensure that the budgeting process for the retirement village was transparent and adhered to the necessary standards of financial disclosure.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Stockland Property Services Pty Ltd must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on John Leslie Scouller and Ronald Vivian Murray one (1) copy of all documents containing the criteria or conditions by reference to which relevant employees may qualify for short-term incentives in respect of the 2016-17 year, by: 4-00pm on

11 September 2017.

2. Each party must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of any written submissions the party wishes to make relating to whether, in respect of the 2016-17 budget:

(a) an estimate of short-term incentives (bonuses) payable for the year should have been included and, if so, what the estimate should have been; and

(b) whether the 2016-17 budget should be recast to identify the service charge for each category of general service and, if so, what those categories should be, by:

25 September 2017.

3. If either party wishes to make submissions in reply to the other party’s written submissions, they must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of written submissions in reply, by:

9 October 2017.

4. Any such submissions and submissions in reply are to be confined to the issues specified at order 2 above.

5. These two remaining issues will be determined by the Tribunal on the papers, by: Not before 9 October 2017.

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.