Community Association DP 270158 v O’Neill [2018] NSWCATCD 26
The respondent, as proprietor of Lot 8, was bound by the Community Management Statement and could not avoid its By-laws by relying on council or regulatory approvals. The evidence established that works had been carried out without required Executive Committee approval and, in several respects, outside the requirements of the Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines. The adjudication application therefore warranted compliance and reinstatement orders, while the separate appeal was unnecessary because the new adjudication application addressed the outstanding issues. The respondent's conduct justified a party/party costs order for the adjudication, but not indemnity costs.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Community Land Management Adjudication Referred to the Tribunal and External Appeal / Principal Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Application substantially allowed; external appeal dismissed; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the adjudication on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed, with each party to pay its own costs of the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- ['community Management Statement' 'by Laws' 'building Modifications and New Construction' 'executive Committee Approval' 'swimming Pool and Fencing Works' 'designated Building Area' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Community Land Management Adjudication Referred to the Tribunal and External Appeal / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondent carried out new construction or building modifications on Lot 8 without approval required by the Community Management Statement.' 'Whether the By-laws in the Community Management Statement were binding on the respondent despite council or regulatory approvals.' 'Whether particular works, including the pool, deck roofing and enclosure, platform works, water tank, carport and air conditioning works should be removed, relocated or made compliant.' 'Whether the external appeal should be determined after the further adjudication application addressed the outstanding issues.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a costs order in respect of the adjudication.']
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent, as proprietor of Lot 8, was bound by the Community Management Statement and could not avoid its By-laws by relying on council or regulatory approvals. The evidence established that works had been carried out without required Executive Committee approval and, in several respects, outside the requirements of the Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines. The adjudication application therefore warranted compliance and reinstatement orders, while the separate appeal was unnecessary because the new adjudication application addressed the outstanding issues. The respondent's conduct justified a party/party costs order for the adjudication, but not indemnity costs.
Court Disposition
Application substantially allowed; external appeal dismissed; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the adjudication on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed, with each party to pay its own costs of the appeal.
Orders
- ['The respondent is to cause the undertaking of all such works as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the Australian Building Code, the relevant Australian Codes for the swimming pool and fencing works surrounding it constructed on Lot 8 of the Community Association DP 270158 and is to produce evidence of...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment