Feletti v Eales; Eales v Feletti [2018] NSWCATCD 66

Feletti v Eales; Eales v Feletti [2018] NSWCATCD 66

Ms Feletti did not establish on objective evidence that by-law 14 or by-law 1 had been breached: her acoustic expert's evidence showed the floor treatment was acceptable, her complaints were largely uncorroborated, and some alleged noises could not be attributed to Mr Eales' unit. Without a proven breach there was no basis for orders against Mr Eales or the Owners Corporation. The Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to determine Mr Eales' harassment or nuisance-style claim against Ms Feletti. Both applications were therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Strata Schemes by Law Dispute Applications in the Consumer and Commercial Division / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Both applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
['strata by Laws' 'noise Disturbance' 'floor Coverings' 'peaceful Enjoyment of Lot' 'owners Corporation Enforcement of by Laws' 'landlord Responsibility for Tenants' 'damages or Compensation for Breach of by Laws' 'harassment of Tenants']
['land Law' 'strata Title' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction'] ['strata by Laws' 'noise Disturbance' 'floor Coverings' 'peaceful Enjoyment of Lot' 'owners Corporation Enforcement of by Laws' 'landlord Responsibility for Tenants' 'damages or Compensation for Breach of by Laws' 'harassment of Tenants']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Strata Schemes by Law Dispute Applications in the Consumer and Commercial Division / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether noise from Mr Eales' unit or his tenants breached by-law 1 concerning noise or by-law 14 concerning floor coverings." 'Whether the Tribunal could order Mr Eales to ensure that tenants or occupiers of his lot comply with the by-laws.' 'Whether the Owners Corporation had failed to exercise its function of enforcing the by-laws.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award Ms Feletti compensation for alleged interference with peaceful enjoyment caused by breach of by-laws.' "Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to restrain alleged harassment by Ms Feletti of occupants of Mr Eales' unit or award Mr Eales compensation for financial losses."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Feletti did not establish on objective evidence that by-law 14 or by-law 1 had been breached: her acoustic expert's evidence showed the floor treatment was acceptable, her complaints were largely uncorroborated, and some alleged noises could not be attributed to Mr Eales' unit. Without a proven breach there was no basis for orders against Mr Eales or the Owners Corporation. The Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to determine Mr Eales' harassment or nuisance-style claim against Ms Feletti. Both applications were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings SC 18/21384: Application dismissed.' 'Proceedings 18/34455: Application dismissed.']