Chen v The Owners – Strata Plan No 55792 [2020] NSWSC 151

Chen v The Owners – Strata Plan No 55792 [2020] NSWSC 151

Leave to appeal was refused because Ms Chen did not establish that any of her proposed grounds involved a question of law within s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Even if any arguable question of law existed, none raised an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice warranting leave. The summons was therefore dismissed, and costs followed the event because the Owners Corporation was entirely successful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Hearing of Competence and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel' 'question of Law' 'competence of Appeal' 'strata Scheme Window Cleaning' 'garage Remote Access Devices' 'restrictive Covenant' 'rectification Works for Water Penetration' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'strata Schemes' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel' 'question of Law' 'competence of Appeal' 'strata Scheme Window Cleaning' 'garage Remote Access Devices' 'restrictive Covenant' 'rectification Works for Water Penetration' 'costs']

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 for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Hearing of Competence and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff identified any question of law within s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of window cleaning, garage remote access, restrictive covenant, rectification work and costs issues.' 'Whether the summons should be dismissed as incompetent or because leave to appeal should be refused.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs of the Supreme Court proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Ms Chen did not establish that any of her proposed grounds involved a question of law within s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Even if any arguable question of law existed, none raised an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice warranting leave. The summons was therefore dismissed, and costs followed the event because the Owners Corporation was entirely successful.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "The plaintiff's summons filed on 28 June 2019 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed."]