Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Timpano v The Owners – Strata Plan 11247 & Ors [2024] NSWCATCD 61 Hearing dates: 29 May 2024 Date of orders: 07 November 2024 Decision date: 07 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G K Burton SC, Senior Member Decision: (1) Application dismissed.
Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – removal of strata committee officer – no basis – meeting procedures including for elections - Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 30(4), 35, 37, 238, Sch 1 para 18, Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 regs 14, 14A
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Anderson v Owners SP 61034 [2019] NSWCATAP 61
Bate v Owners SP 60549 [2018] NSWCATCD 36
Bischoff v Rita Sahade [2015] NSWCATAP 135
Co Funds Management PL v Owners SP 78945 [2011] NSWCTTT 488
Farland v Simmons [2018] NSWCATCD 28
Foong v Scutella [2021] NSWCATAP 225
Gershberg v Owners SP 5768 [2011] NSWCTTT 411
Kahn v Owners SP 2010 [2017] NSWCATAP 39
Kotevski v Seadon and Owners SP 82413 [2013] NSWCTTT 597
Linney v Owners SP 11669 [2021] NSCATCD 123
Lockrey v Rosewall [2022] NSWCATCD 27
Moallem v CTTT [2013] NSWSC 1700
Owners SP 14593 v Soares [2019] NSWCATAP 3
Owners SP 63341 v Malachite Holdings PL [2018] NSWCATAP 256
Robinson v Owners SP 61717 [2018] NSWCATCD 49
Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Owners – Strata Plan 11247 (first respondent)
Tamsin Louise Pretty (second respondent)
Chantelle Louise Demanuele (third respondent)
Frank Tuntler (fourth respondent)Representation: Applicant in person
Mr G Adamson, licensee and principal of strata manager (first respondent)
Second respondent in person
Third respondent in person; dismissed from proceedings
Fourth respondent in person; dismissed from proceedings
File Number(s): 2023/00389266 (formerly SC 23/29182) Publication restriction: Nil
DECISION
Outcome of proceedings
-
I have found that the application should be dismissed.
-
Both parties were not legally represented and no leave for legal representation was sought. I do not make provision for any costs orders, which in any event would require special circumstances to be established under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), given the nature of the relief claimed: Owners SP 63341 v Malachite Holdings PL [2018] NSWCATAP 256 at [3]-[5], [58] et seq esp [104]-[111].
Background, procedure, issues
-
The applicant owns Lot 22 in a 30-lot strata scheme in Sylvania, a southern suburb in Sydney, NSW, that was registered in 1976. The first respondent is the owners corporation (OC) of the scheme. The second respondent, Ms Pretty, is the current chair of the OC and was formerly at relevant times the secretary. The third respondent, Ms Demanuele, was the former treasurer of the OC who resigned in December 2023 having sold her lot; she was removed as a respondent at the outset of the hearing. The fourth respondent, Mr Tuntler, was the former chair of the OC but was not re-elected to the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Timpano v The Owners - Strata Plan 11247 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATCD 61
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the removal of the officer was justified under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) and the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016. Specifically, it had to consider whether the removal complied with the requirements set out in sections 30(4), 35, 37, 238 of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Regulation, including regulations 14 and 14A, which pertain to the procedures for meetings and elections.
The court found that the procedures followed for the removal of the committee officer did not align with the statutory and regulatory requirements. The decision to remove the officer lacked proper basis, and the meeting in which the removal was decided did not adhere to the necessary procedural safeguards. Consequently, the court concluded that the removal was invalid and dismissed the application.
The final order of the court was that the application be dismissed, indicating that the removal of the strata committee officer was not legally sound under the relevant strata laws.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Application dismissed.
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.