Stuart-Carberry v Jackson & Anor [2023] NSWCATCD 183

Stuart-Carberry v Jackson & Anor [2023] NSWCATCD 183

The applicant failed to produce cogent evidence of a by-law 20 breach after the respondents became owners, and post-sale noise was limited and excluded by the by-law; thus, no continuing breach exists and the application was misconceived.

Parties
Applicant: Patricia Stuart-Carberry; First Respondent: Phoebe Jackson; Second Respondent: Thomas Green
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Application / Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
By Laws, Noise Disturbance, Strata Schemes
Strata Law Property Law By Laws Noise Disturbance Strata Schemes

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Stuart-Carberry

Applicant

Phoebe Jackson

First Respondent

Thomas Green

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached by-law 20 regarding floor coverings and prevention of noise transmission
  2. 2 Whether the current flooring in Lot 3 is in breach of statutory or by-law requirements after change of ownership

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to produce cogent evidence of a by-law 20 breach after the respondents became owners, and post-sale noise was limited and excluded by the by-law; thus, no continuing breach exists and the application was misconceived.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed