Park Regis CTC Pty Ltd and Anor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 3397 [2017] NSWCATCD 66

Park Regis CTC Pty Ltd and Anor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 3397 [2017] NSWCATCD 66

The Tribunal declined the application in full. It found that Special By-Law 21 was not shown to be unjust, as it reflected a valid commercial bargain, was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and no evidence demonstrated the commerciality had changed since its adoption. The Tribunal also lacked jurisdiction to make certain declarations or found insufficient accounting evidence to support others. The applicants did not establish grounds for intervention under s 149(1)(c), and costs followed the event.

Parties
First Applicant: Park Regis CTC Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: One Funds Management Ltd ACN 117 797 403; Respondent: The Owners – Strata Plan No 3397
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Strata Scheme/consumer and Commercial Dispute / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Special by Law Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Exclusive Use of Common Property, Unjust by Law Applications, Lift Maintenance Agreements
Strata and Community Title Law Civil Procedure Special by Law Interpretation Jurisdiction of Tribunal Exclusive Use of Common Property Unjust by Law Applications Lift Maintenance Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Park Regis CTC Pty Ltd

First Applicant

One Funds Management Ltd ACN 117 797 403

Second Applicant

The Owners – Strata Plan No 3397

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strata Scheme/consumer and Commercial Dispute / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Special By-Law 21 should be repealed or amended as unjust under s 149(1)(c) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the owner of Lot 1 had paid all costs under Special By-Law 21
  3. 3 Interpretation and effect of Special By-Law 21 and Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make the declarations sought

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal declined the application in full. It found that Special By-Law 21 was not shown to be unjust, as it reflected a valid commercial bargain, was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and no evidence demonstrated the commerciality had changed since its adoption. The Tribunal also lacked jurisdiction to make certain declarations or found insufficient accounting evidence to support others. The applicants did not establish grounds for intervention under s 149(1)(c), and costs followed the event.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave be granted to One Funds Management Ltd ACN 117 797 403 to join in the Application as Second Applicant.
  • Application dismissed.