The Owners - Strata Plan No 100339 v SHLACDZ Pty Ltd t/as S Building & Facility Management

In the case of The Owners - Strata Plan No 100339 v SHLACDZ Pty Ltd t/as S Building & Facility Management, the applicants, who are owners of units in a strata scheme, sought the removal of the respondent, who was the building manager, from their positions. The applicants also sought disclosure of any interests the respondent may have had in other strata schemes and to establish whether the respondent was a connected person under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). The dispute was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues that the Tribunal had to address were whether the applicants had provided sufficient grounds to warrant the removal of the respondent as building manager and whether the respondent had disclosed all necessary interests as required under the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW). Additionally, the Tribunal needed to determine if the respondent was a connected person as defined by the Act, which could affect the disclosure requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the respondent as building manager. The Tribunal reasoned that the grounds for removal had to be substantiated by clear and compelling evidence, which was not presented in this case. Regarding the disclosure of interests, the Tribunal determined that the respondent had not fully complied with the disclosure requirements. However, the Tribunal found that the failure to disclose was not wilful but rather a result of administrative oversight. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not a connected person as defined by the Act, which impacted the disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the applicants had not established the necessary grounds for the removal of the respondent or that the respondent had failed to comply with the disclosure requirements in a manner that warranted their removal. The Tribunal did, however, make an order for the respondent to comply with the disclosure requirements moving forward.