Pidgeon v Nagle [2022] NSWCATCD 61

Pidgeon v Nagle [2022] NSWCATCD 61

Both proposed agents appeared qualified, had consented, and held the requisite licences, and there was no evidence that one was more qualified or suitable. Balancing the interests of all lot owners, including financial capacity, the Tribunal found a relatively significant cost differential between the agents. Chapman Property was closer to the scheme, had lower estimated fees, and had multiple staff available, while necessary third-party services could be procured by either agent at about the same cost. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that Chapman Property should be appointed for 12 months under s 237 of the SSMA.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of a Compulsory Strata Managing Agent Under S 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (nsw) / Determination of Which Proposed Strata Managing Agent Should Be Appointed After the Initial Proposed Agent Declined to Provide Consent; Orders Amended Under S 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Outcome
113 Pty Ltd trading as Chapman Property was appointed as strata managing agent for Strata Plan No. 80285 for a period of 1 year.
Legal Topics
['strata Managing Agent' 'appointment Under S 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (nsw)' 'owners Corporation Management' 'selection Between Proposed Strata Managing Agents' 'strata Management Fees and Levies']
['land Law' 'strata Title'] ['strata Managing Agent' 'appointment Under S 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (nsw)' 'owners Corporation Management' 'selection Between Proposed Strata Managing Agents' 'strata Management Fees and Levies']

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

Application for Appointment of a Compulsory Strata Managing Agent Under S 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (nsw) / Determination of Which Proposed Strata Managing Agent Should Be Appointed After the Initial Proposed Agent Declined to Provide Consent; Orders Amended Under S 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Which proposed strata managing agent should be appointed under s 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW).' 'Whether the proposed agents had provided consent and held the requisite licences.' 'What factors were relevant to choosing between proposed strata managing agents, including qualifications, experience, proximity, staffing, inspection of the scheme, budget information, and fees.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both proposed agents appeared qualified, had consented, and held the requisite licences, and there was no evidence that one was more qualified or suitable. Balancing the interests of all lot owners, including financial capacity, the Tribunal found a relatively significant cost differential between the agents. Chapman Property was closer to the scheme, had lower estimated fees, and had multiple staff available, while necessary third-party services could be procured by either agent at about the same cost. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that Chapman Property should be appointed for 12 months under s 237 of the SSMA.

Court Disposition

113 Pty Ltd trading as Chapman Property was appointed as strata managing agent for Strata Plan No. 80285 for a period of 1 year.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 237(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, 113 Pty Ltd trading as Chapman Property (Agent) is appointed as a strata manager agent for a period of 1 year from the date of this order to exercise all functions of owners corporation of Strata Plan No. 80285.' 'The Agent has and may exercise all...