Van der Rijt v Collins [2024] NSWCATAP 247

Van der Rijt v Collins [2024] NSWCATAP 247

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal did not err in interpreting or applying the requirements of written consent under sections 143 and 149, procedural fairness was satisfied, the adequacy and specificity of the proposed works by-law met legal requirements, and no ground warranted leave to appeal or indicated a...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Johannes Van der Rijt; First Respondent: Sam Collins; Second Respondent: Owners SP no 57413
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Common Property Rights by Law, Consent Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Specificity of by Laws, Appeal Grounds
Strata Law Property Law Common Property Rights by Law Consent Requirements Procedural Fairness Specificity of by Laws Appeal Grounds

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Johannes Van der Rijt

Appellant

Sam Collins

First Respondent

Owners SP no 57413

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal erred in applying requirements for written consent to common property rights by-law under Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) sections 143 and 149
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was afforded to Appellant in admitting evidence post-hearing
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal failed to consider adequacy and specificity of proposed works by-law

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal did not err in interpreting or applying the requirements of written consent under sections 143 and 149, procedural fairness was satisfied, the adequacy and specificity of the proposed works by-law met legal requirements, and no ground warranted leave to appeal or indicated a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Orders 2, 3 and 4 made at first instance on 25 June 2024 are affirmed.