Huang v The Owners – Strata Plan No 7632 [2020] NSWCATAP 278

Huang v The Owners – Strata Plan No 7632 [2020] NSWCATAP 278

The appeals failed because the appellants were bound by earlier findings that they had carried out unauthorised bathroom works to common property without owners corporation approval and that the works did not comply with relevant codes or good trade practices; their arguments that the works were lot property, properly waterproofed, or governed by Home Building Act warranty time limits were unsupported or irrelevant. The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 empowered the Tribunal to order access and rectification, the $9020 amount had an evidentiary basis and was conservative, and the costs order was within discretion because the appellants unreasonably sought to relitigate matters already...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Strata Title Appeals From NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division Reinstatement and Costs Decisions / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Time to appeal extended; both appeals dismissed; costs of the appeals reserved with liberty to apply within 42 days.
Legal Topics
['unauthorised Common Property Works' 'access to Lot for Works' 'bathroom Waterproofing and Reinstatement' 'special Circumstances Costs Order' 'extension of Time to Appeal']
['strata Title' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['unauthorised Common Property Works' 'access to Lot for Works' 'bathroom Waterproofing and Reinstatement' 'special Circumstances Costs Order' 'extension of Time to Appeal']

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

Strata Title Appeals From NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division Reinstatement and Costs Decisions / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for instituting the appeals should be extended.' 'Whether the Tribunal proceeding was properly authorised by the owners corporation.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction notwithstanding that mediation had not occurred.' 'Whether the bathroom works carried out by the appellants were unauthorised common property works requiring removal and reinstatement.' 'Whether the floors and tiles in the bathrooms were common property or lot property.' 'Whether orders requiring access to Lot 17 and payment of $9020 for rectification works were available under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.' 'Whether the costs order against the appellants was justified by special circumstances under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals failed because the appellants were bound by earlier findings that they had carried out unauthorised bathroom works to common property without owners corporation approval and that the works did not comply with relevant codes or good trade practices; their arguments that the works were lot property, properly waterproofed, or governed by Home Building Act warranty time limits were unsupported or irrelevant. The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 empowered the Tribunal to order access and rectification, the $9020 amount had an evidentiary basis and was conservative, and the costs order was within discretion because the appellants unreasonably sought to relitigate matters already...

Court Disposition

Time to appeal extended; both appeals dismissed; costs of the appeals reserved with liberty to apply within 42 days.

Orders

  • ['The time for instituting the appeals is extended to the extent that the appeals are deemed to have been filed within time.' 'Each of the appeals is dismissed.' 'Costs are reserved with liberty to apply which should be exercised within 42 days of this date.']