Silberstein v The Owners Strata Plan No 55468

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Silberstein v The Owners – Strata Plan No 55468 & Ors [2022] NSWCATCD 207
Hearing dates: 29 November 2022, on the papers
Date of orders: 14 December 2022
Decision date: 14 December 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member
Decision:

1. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the summons issued on 4 October 2022 at the request of the applicant to the first respondent is set aside.

2. If the respondents seek costs, they should file and serve submissions as to costs by 23 December 2023.

3. The applicant may respond by 23 January 2023.

4. The respondent may reply by 30 January 2023.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside a summons to produce documents

Legislation Cited:

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) - ss 9(3), 37, 106(1), 260

Cases Cited:

Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR 564

Structerre Consulting Engineers (NSW) Pty Limited v Townend [2020] NSWSC 1476

Wollongong Coal Ltd v Gujarat NRE Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 758

Texts Cited:

The Hon J Bryson KC, Continuing Professional Education - The 2004 Judges Series. Practical Litigation in the Supreme Court and the Federal Court

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Jessica Hetty Silberstein (Applicant)
The Owners – Strata Plan No 55468 (First Respondent)
Michael Adamo (Second Respondent)
Peter Michael Hans Engelbert (Third Respondent)
William Paul O’Brien (Fourth Respondent)
Terrence Matthew Gagen (Fifth Respondent)
Strata choice Pty Ltd (Sixth Respondent)
Hecker Australia Pty Ltd (Seventh Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: R Clark
Respondents: W Ilovski

Solicitors:

Applicant: Silberstein & Associates
Respondents: Bannermans Lawyers
File Number(s): SC 22/05083
Publication restriction: NIL

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an application by the respondents to set aside a summons issued on 4 October 2022 at the request of the applicant to the first respondent (Summons).

  2. The content of the Schedule of the Summons is as follows:

A. Definitions

The following definitions apply:

'Document' includes:

a. any record of information mentioned in the definition of document in Part 1 of the Dictionary to the Evidence Act 1995; and b. any other material, data or information stored or recorded by mechanical or electronic means.

'OC' means The Owners - Strata Plan No. 55468.

Unit' means Unit 2202, [XXX] Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

'Works' means the rectification works conducted and to be conducted to any one of the four balcony areas in the Unit, in association with water ingress issues.

B. The documents and things you must produce are as follows:

1. Documents which record or evidence communications referring to, or in relation to, water ingress issues in the Unit and/or to the Works.

2. Documents which record or evidence any inspections, testing, reports, quotes, work orders, invoices, receipts (including drafts of any such Documents), in relation to water ingress issues in the Unit and/or the Works, including without limitation all building manager reports that mention the water ingress issues…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Silberstein v The Owners Strata Plan No 55468 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
[2022] NSWCATCD 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Silberstein v The Owners Strata Plan No 55468 involved a dispute regarding a summons to produce documents, with the applicant, Silberstein, seeking to set aside the summons issued by the first respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Silberstein argued that the summons was improperly served, and therefore sought to have it set aside.

The legal issues before the court were whether the summons was served in accordance with the rules of court and if not, whether it should be set aside. The court had to consider the proper service of the summons and whether any errors in service were significant enough to warrant setting it aside.

The court found that there was indeed an error in the service of the summons, as it was not served in compliance with the rules of court. The court considered this error to be significant enough to set aside the summons, and did so. The court also addressed the issue of costs, directing that if the respondents sought costs, they should file and serve submissions by a specified date. Silberstein was given a period to respond, and the respondents were allowed to reply.

The final orders included the setting aside of the summons, a direction regarding the possibility of costs, and specified dates for filing submissions regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the summons issued on 4 October 2022 at the request of the applicant to the first respondent is set aside.

2. If the respondents seek costs, they should file and serve submissions as to costs by 23 December 2023.

3. The applicant may respond by 23 January 2023.

4. The respondent may reply by 30 January 2023.

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.