Singh v Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No 2)

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.