David and Edith Younger v The Owners- Strata Plan No 57504 [2014] NSWCATCD 142

David and Edith Younger v The Owners- Strata Plan No 57504 [2014] NSWCATCD 142

The applicants did not discharge the onus of establishing that the allocation of unit entitlements was unreasonable under s 183. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Dubrow's report provided a sufficiently reliable basis for that finding because it contained insufficient reasoning, inadequately explained the significantly lower square metre rate allocated to the commercial lot, and was based on an extremely limited inspection of residential units. In any event, given that only the applicants sought variation, they purchased lot 113 with the existing entitlement more than 12 years earlier, and they acquired the degree of control attached to that entitlement, the Tribunal would not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Allocate Unit Entitlements in a Strata Scheme / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['re Allocation of Unit Entitlements' 'valuation Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'strata Levies']
['strata Law' 'administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['re Allocation of Unit Entitlements' 'valuation Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'strata Levies']

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

Application to Re Allocate Unit Entitlements in a Strata Scheme / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the allocation of unit entitlements among the lots was unreasonable when the strata plan was registered or when the strata plan of subdivision was registered under s 183 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996.' "Whether the applicants' valuation evidence provided a sufficiently reliable basis for re-allocating unit entitlements." 'Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to vary unit entitlements in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not discharge the onus of establishing that the allocation of unit entitlements was unreasonable under s 183. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Dubrow's report provided a sufficiently reliable basis for that finding because it contained insufficient reasoning, inadequately explained the significantly lower square metre rate allocated to the commercial lot, and was based on an extremely limited inspection of residential units. In any event, given that only the applicants sought variation, they purchased lot 113 with the existing entitlement more than 12 years earlier, and they acquired the degree of control attached to that entitlement, the Tribunal would not...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application to re-allocate unit entitlements is dismissed pursuant to s 185(3) of the Act.' 'Each party is to bear their own costs of the application.']