Singh v Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No 2) - [2012] FCA 900

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No 2) [2012] FCA 900

Citation: Singh v Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No 2) [2012] FCA 900

Appeal from: The Owners – Strata Plan No 11723 v Singh [2012] FMCA 308

Parties: JAGJIT SINGH v THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN NO 11723

File number: NSD 593 of 2012

Judge: GRIFFITHS J

Date of judgment: 14 August 2012

Date of hearing: 14 August 2012

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 8

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr D Radman of Grace Lawyers Pty Limited

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 593 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
JAGJIT SINGH
Appellant

AND:
THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN NO 11723
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRIFFITHS J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 AUGUST 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The interlocutory application is dismissed.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 593 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
JAGJIT SINGH
Appellant

AND:
THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN NO 11723
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRIFFITHS J

DATE:

14 AUGUST 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The background to this matter is set out in my earlier judgment reported as Singh v Owners Strata Plan 11723 [2012] FCA 538. Mr Singh’s appeal against Smith FM’s decision is scheduled to be heard in the November sittings of the Full Court. There is also an objection to competency pending in respect of that appeal.
By an undated interlocutory application the applicant moved the Court for certain relief, as set out in appendix A to that application. Relevantly, the relief sought was that the respondent provide the applicant with assessment certificates in respect of the amount of the default judgment obtained in the Local Court, as well as in respect of a figure of $5000.62, which is an amount included in the creditor’s petition. The applicant further sought an order that if the said certificates were not provided, the sequestration order made by Smith FM be set aside.
An affidavit was read by the respondent opposing the application. The affidavit was sworn by Ms Sylvia Quang, a solicitor employed by the respondent’s solicitors. Ms Quang was cross-examined by Mr Singh, who represented himself. He asked Ms Quang various questions relating to her knowledge of the existence of assessment certificates in respect of costs the subject of both the default judgment and the separate figure which appears in the creditor’s petition.
As to the first matter, Ms Quang gave evidence that the only assessment certificate of which she was aware was the document dated 6 May 2011 issued by the Local Court of…

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 Singh v Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No 2) 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: [2012] FCA 900
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal from Mr. Jagjit Singh against Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 in a case involving a dispute over assessment certificates and the enforcement of a default judgment. The appeal arose from a previous decision by the Federal Magistrates Court, where Mr. Singh had unsuccessfully sought relief against the respondent, Owners Strata Plan No. 11723. The current case involved an interlocutory application by Mr. Singh, who appeared in person, requesting that the respondent provide assessment certificates for certain costs and that, in the absence of these certificates, the sequestration order made by the Federal Magistrate be set aside.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was obligated to provide assessment certificates for the costs in question and, if so, whether the absence of such certificates warranted the setting aside of the sequestration order. The court had to consider the evidence presented by Ms. Sylvia Quang, a solicitor for the respondent, who testified that the only assessment certificate she was aware of was one issued by the Local Court of New South Wales dated 6 May 2011. This certificate pertained to a default judgment of $14,251.68 and an additional amount of $7,463.05 for legal expenses under section 80 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW). Regarding the second amount of $5,000.62 mentioned in the creditor’s petition, Ms. Quang stated that she had no knowledge of any assessment certificate for these costs.

The court found that there was no basis for the relief sought by Mr. Singh, as the evidence indicated either that no assessment certificates existed for the second amount, or that a relevant certificate had already been provided to Mr. Singh. Therefore, the court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered Mr. Singh to pay the respondent’s costs for the application. Justice Griffiths emphasized that Mr. Singh's submissions did not address the specific issue of whether the sought orders should be made based on the available evidence. The court concluded that the interlocutory application lacked merit and was properly dismissed.

Orders