Vojkovic v Savva

Case [2023] NSWCATCD 141


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vojkovic v Savva [2023] NSWCATCD 141
Hearing dates: 16 October 2023
Date of orders: 27 October 2023
Decision date: 27 October 2023
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: D Robertson, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The application is dismissed.

Catchwords:

LAND LAW – Strata title – Obligations of owners and occupiers – Keeping of pets – Nuisance – Whether barking of dog shown to constitute a nuisance or unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of another lot

LAND LAW – Strata title – Owners corporation – Strata committee – Whether respondent should be removed from the strata committee

Legislation Cited:

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 54, 153, 158, 238

Cases Cited:

Chehelnabi v Gourmet and Leisure Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 102

Linney v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 11669 [2021] NSWCATCD 123

Lockrey v Rosewall [2022] NSWCATCD 27

The Owners - Strata Plan No. 56587 v White [2021] NSWCATCD 67

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Darko Vojkovic (Applicant)
Andrew Savva and Georgina Savva (Respondents)
The Owners – Strata Plan No 94579 (Other Party)
File Number(s): SC 23/13745

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. The applicant in these proceedings is an occupant of Lot 2 in Strata Plan No 94579, a multi-storey building in Brighton Le Sands. He states that his wife is the owner of Lot 2, but he brings these proceedings in his own right and not on behalf of his wife.

  2. The applicant seeks orders against the respondents who are the owners of Lot 3.

  3. Lots 2 and 3 are on the ground floor of the building and each has a courtyard at street level forming part of the lot.

  4. The first order sought by the applicant is that, pursuant to s 238 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA), Mr Savva be removed from the Strata Committee of Strata Plan No 94579.

  5. The second order sought by the applicant is that, pursuant to s 158 of the SSMA, the respondents be required to take action to terminate a nuisance arising from the respondents keeping a dog on their lot.

  6. The applicant filed a folder of documents on 29 May 2023. He filed a further bundle of documents on 12 October 2023 and, at the hearing, sought to file a further 11 pages constituted by two tax invoices issued to the owners corporation of Strata Plan No 94579 by JS Mueller & Co Lawyers on 28 April and 30 June 2023.

  7. The respondents filed a bundle of documents on 15 June 2023.

  8. All of the documents were admitted in evidence.

  9. Each of the applicant and Mr Savva took an oath and verified the contents of the various statements contained in their bundles of documents. Each was given the opportunity to ask questions of the other.

  10. Sections 158 and 238 of the SSMA provide:

158   Order for removal of an animal permitted under by-laws

(1)  The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, make an order against…

Continue reading Vojkovic v Savva

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vojkovic v Savva [2023] NSWCATCD 141
Case
[2023] NSWCATCD 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vojkovic v Savva involved a dispute between the appellant, a resident of a strata scheme, and the respondent, a member of the strata committee, regarding the keeping of a dog and the respondent's conduct on the committee. The appellant alleged that the respondent's dog caused a nuisance by barking, which interfered with the appellant's enjoyment of her property. Additionally, the appellant sought the removal of the respondent from the strata committee due to alleged misconduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the barking of the dog constituted a nuisance or an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of another lot, and whether the respondent should be removed from the strata committee. The court considered the relevant legislation, case law, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court had to determine whether the barking of the dog was a nuisance and whether the respondent's conduct warranted removal from the committee.

The court found that the barking of the dog did not constitute a nuisance or an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of another lot. The court considered the nature of the barking, the frequency, and the impact on the appellant, and concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the barking was excessive or unreasonable. Furthermore, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim that the respondent should be removed from the strata committee. The court held that the appellant had not established the grounds for removal as required by the legislation.

The court dismissed the application and made no orders. The respondent was not required to pay the appellant's costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing a nuisance claim and the threshold for removing a member of a strata committee. The outcome of this case may provide guidance to future litigants in similar disputes within strata schemes.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application is 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.