The Owners - Strata Plan 68523 v Peter Drury

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners - Strata Plan 68523 v Peter Drury [2011] NSWLC 3
Hearing dates:2 February 2011
Decision date: 08 February 2011
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Magistrate Tsavdaridis
Decision:

1. Application by Defendant/Cross-Claimant for leave to vacate hearing date of 2 February 2011 - Refused.

2. Application by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for leave to proceed on an ex parte basis - Granted.

3. Defence struck out for want of prosecution.

4. Judgment for the Plaintiff.

5. Cross-Claim dismissed for want of prosecution.

Catchwords: Claim for payment of strata levies - Application to vacate hearing date - No appearance by Defendant - Medical certificate faxed to Court - Application to proceed ex parte
Legislation Cited: Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Regulation 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Magjarraj v Asteron Life Limited
[2009] NSWSC 1433
Coshott v The Owners of Strata Plan No. 48892 [2006] NSWSC 308
Coshott v The Owners SP 48892
[2008] NSWSC 854
Owners of Strata Plan 36131 v Dimitriou
[2009] NSWCA 27
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: The Owners - Strata Plan 68523 (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Peter Drury (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Representation: Mr Daniel Radman, Grace Lawyers (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Defendant unrepresented and not present
File Number(s):31344 of 2009

Reasons for Decision

  1. These proceedings arise from an action commenced by the Owners' Corporation of Strata Plan 68523 seeking from the Defendant payment of unpaid strata levies in respect of Lot 21 (Unit 19, 24 Scott Street, Byron Bay) and Lot 22 (Unit 20, 24 Scott Street, Byron Bay), of which the Defendant is the registered proprietor. As a result of being put to the task of proceeding against the Defendant on a litigated basis, the Plaintiff also claims costs and interest pursuant to specialist provisions dealing with the administration of strata plans contained within the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW), as distinct from the usual course of matters in this jurisdiction which ground applications for costs and interest in the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and/or the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

  1. The Statement of Claim in this matter was filed on or about 18 June 2009 and, following a lengthy history of timetable and case management directions, the matter was ultimately set down for hearing on 2 February 2011.

Chronology

  1. On or about 18 June 2009, the Plaintiff issued a Statement of Claim seeking an amount of $33,297.66 for unpaid levies, interest and costs. Between June 2009 and November 2009, the Plaintiff made several attempts to locate the Defendant in order to effect service of the Statement of Claim on him.

  1. On or about 24 November 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order that leave be granted to amend the Statement of Claim and that service of the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim be effected by substituted service on the Defendant's then solicitor.

  1. On or about 30 November 2009, the Court made orders granting leave to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Owners - Strata Plan 68523 v Peter Drury 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
[2011] NSWLC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Owners - Strata Plan 68523 sought payment of strata levies from Peter Drury, who was a unit owner within the strata scheme. The dispute was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid levies for a period spanning from 2008 to 2010, along with interest and costs. Drury filed a defence and a cross-claim, but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to proceed on an ex parte basis due to Drury's absence. The court also needed to determine if Drury's application to vacate the hearing date should be granted. The plaintiffs argued that Drury's lack of appearance and communication warranted an ex parte hearing, while Drury's application to vacate was based on an alleged medical condition.

The court held that Drury's application to vacate the hearing date was without merit as he did not provide satisfactory evidence of his medical condition. The court noted that Drury had faxed a medical certificate to the court but failed to attend the hearing. The court found that Drury's absence was unjustified and granted the plaintiffs' application to proceed on an ex parte basis. Consequently, the defence was struck out for want of prosecution and judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs. The cross-claim was also dismissed for the same reason.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application by Defendant/Cross-Claimant for leave to vacate hearing date of 2 February 2011 - Refused.

2. Application by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for leave to proceed on an ex parte basis - Granted.

3. Defence struck out for want of prosecution.

4. Judgment for the Plaintiff.

5. Cross-Claim dismissed for want of prosecution.

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.