Titus v Eddington [2019] NSWCATAP 247

Titus v Eddington [2019] NSWCATAP 247

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants did not identify any error of law or ground warranting leave. The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal was entitled to accept Mr Keen's explanation, reject the allegation that he acted as an advocate, prefer his valuation evidence over Mr Casemore's, and find that the appellants had not established that the 45/55 unit entitlement allocation was unreasonable at registration. The Tribunal's alternative discretionary refusal to reallocate unit entitlements relied on permissible considerations, including the parties' knowledge of the allocation, control issues in the two-lot scheme, and Sahade, and did not lack an evident and intelligible...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing an Application Under S 236 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 for Reallocation of Unit Entitlements in a Two Lot Strata Scheme. / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reallocation of Unit Entitlements' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'evaluation of Expert Evidence' 'questions of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'natural Justice']
['strata Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['reallocation of Unit Entitlements' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'evaluation of Expert Evidence' 'questions of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'natural Justice']

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

Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing an Application Under S 236 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 for Reallocation of Unit Entitlements in a Two Lot Strata Scheme. / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in preferring the valuation evidence of Mr Keen over that of Mr Casemore.' 'Whether the Tribunal misapplied the Makita principles or applied them unequally to the expert valuers.' 'Whether the appellants established that the original allocation of unit entitlements was unreasonable when the strata plan was registered.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in considering Mr Leich's explanation for the 45/55 allocation and in not giving weight to Mr Titus' evidence in reply." "Whether the Tribunal's alternative refusal to exercise discretion to reallocate unit entitlements was legally unreasonable, biased, or contrary to Sahade." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under cl 12 of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants did not identify any error of law or ground warranting leave. The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal was entitled to accept Mr Keen's explanation, reject the allegation that he acted as an advocate, prefer his valuation evidence over Mr Casemore's, and find that the appellants had not established that the 45/55 unit entitlement allocation was unreasonable at registration. The Tribunal's alternative discretionary refusal to reallocate unit entitlements relied on permissible considerations, including the parties' knowledge of the allocation, control issues in the two-lot scheme, and Sahade, and did not lack an evident and intelligible...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed;' 'If the respondent seeks costs of the appeal, written submissions must be filed and served within 14 days from the date of this decision;' 'If the appellants oppose an order for costs being made, written submissions must be filed and served within 14 days thereafter;' 'The submissions on...