The Owners - Strata Plan No 87812 v Thomson

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners – Strata Plan No 87812 v Thomson [2019] NSWCATCD 38
Hearing dates: 26 February 2019
Date of orders: 01 May 2019
Decision date: 01 May 2019
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: J A Ringrose, General Member
Decision:

1. The respondent, Francine Marie Thomson is to pay the applicant, The Owners – Strata Plan No 87812 a penalty of six Penalty Units namely the sum $660.00 within 30 days of the date of these orders.

 2. Each party is to bear their own costs.
Catchwords: Whether the respondent has breached both By-laws 9 and 16 – whether the evidence is sufficient to disclose all breaches alleged or whether only some breaches have been made out – whether a penalty for a breach of each By-law should be imposed rather than a penalty for the particular actions which may constitute a breach of one or both By-laws.
Legislation Cited: Civil And Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 s147
Cases Cited: The Owners-Strata Plan 82306 v Anderson [20017] NSWCATCD 85
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: The Owners - Strata Plan No 87812 (Applicant)
Francine Marie Thomson (Respondent)
Representation:

Ms H Amanatiadis (Applicant)
Respondent (self-represented)

  Solicitors:
JS Mueller & Co (Applicant)
File Number(s): SC 18/48105
Publication restriction: Nil

reasons for decision

Application

  1. By an application filed on 8 November 2018 the Owners Strata Plan 87812 through their Strata Manager Key Strata Management sought orders pursuant to section 147 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 that the Tribunal order that the respondent pay a monetary penalty of 10 penalty units for each breach of each By-law making a total of 20 Penalty Units.

  2. It was noted that the model By-laws were adopted when the Strata Plan was registered in January 2013. In late 2017 complaints were made by owners in regard to rubbish being carried through the foyer in leaky bags and it was further claimed that in early 2018 further complaints were received from owners concerning vandalism and rubbish being left on the common property.

  3. Modifications were made to the bin bay area in May and June of 2018 the old access way to the bins was locked off and a new bin bay path was established.

  4. It is alleged that the respondent was observed dumping rubbish in the bin bay area but not in the bins provided and that this breach of By-laws continued after the service of a Notice in accordance with section 147 of the Act.

  5. The matter was initially listed before the Tribunal on 20 November 2018 when leave was granted to both parties to be legally represented and directions were made for the applicant to provide its documents by 18 December 2018 and the respondent to provide her documents in reply by 5 January 2019.

  6. Directions as to specific documents required to be produced by the applicant were made and parties were advised that, as the applicant was seeking the imposition of a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Owners - Strata Plan No 87812 v Thomson 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
[2019] NSWCATCD 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the applicant, The Owners – Strata Plan No 87812, and the respondent, Francine Marie Thomson, regarding alleged breaches of By-laws 9 and 16 of a strata title scheme. The court had to determine whether Ms. Thomson had indeed breached these by-laws, whether the evidence was sufficient to establish all alleged breaches or only some, and if penalties should be imposed for each by-law breached or for specific actions that might constitute a breach of one or both by-laws.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the by-laws, the sufficiency of the evidence provided to substantiate the allegations, and the appropriate method of imposing penalties for breaches. The applicant argued that Ms. Thomson had breached By-laws 9 and 16, while the respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the breaches. The court had to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence and decide on the appropriate penalties to be imposed if any breaches were found to have occurred.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that Ms. Thomson had indeed breached both By-laws 9 and 16. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish the breaches, and therefore, penalties should be imposed. The court ordered Ms. Thomson to pay a penalty of six Penalty Units, amounting to $660.00, within 30 days of the date of the orders. Both parties were to bear their own costs.

In summary, the court found that Ms. Thomson had breached the relevant by-laws, and as a result, she was required to pay a penalty. The court's decision was based on the sufficiency of the evidence provided and the appropriate method of imposing penalties. The orders required the respondent to pay a penalty and that each party bear their own costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent, Francine Marie Thomson is to pay the applicant, The Owners – Strata Plan No 87812 a penalty of six Penalty Units namely the sum $660.00 within 30 days of the date of these orders.

2. Each party is to bear their own costs.

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.