Voicu v The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624 [2020] NSWSC 296

Voicu v The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624 [2020] NSWSC 296

Because the applicant's proposed review identified no error by the costs assessor and there was no identified merit in the application, the Manager's refusal to extend time should not be disturbed even though the Manager mistakenly referred to the earlier governing legislation; the outcome would not have differed under the correct legislative scheme.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ilie Gheorghe Voicu; First Defendant: The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624; Second Defendant: The Manager, Costs Assessment
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Orders and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; plaintiff granted an extension of time but not substantive relief; costs ordered against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Court Procedures, Statutory Interpretation, Appeals Process
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Extension of Time Judicial Review Court Procedures Statutory Interpretation Appeals Process

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilie Gheorghe Voicu

Plaintiff

The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624

First Defendant

The Manager, Costs Assessment

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Orders and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Manager, Costs Assessment, erred in refusing an extension of time to seek review of the costs assessment certificates.
  2. 2 Whether relief should be granted under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 49.19 or by judicial review under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 69.
  3. 3 Whether the Manager’s error as to the applicable legislation was material to the refusal to extend time.

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's proposed review identified no error by the costs assessor and there was no identified merit in the application, the Manager's refusal to extend time should not be disturbed even though the Manager mistakenly referred to the earlier governing legislation; the outcome would not have differed under the correct legislative scheme.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; plaintiff granted an extension of time but not substantive relief; costs ordered against plaintiff.

Orders

  • Grant Mr Voicu an extension of time under UCPR r 49.20(4) to 24 September 2019 to file the summons seeking review.
  • Dismiss the summons.