9 Sept 2022
The levies were validly raised and demanded, the defendant had been served, and under s128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 only simple interest is recoverable; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the unpaid levies, applicable simple interest and costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
14 Apr 2022
Applicants failed to establish that enforcement would cause a substantial miscarriage of justice: service and procedural requirements for issuing the sale order were met under the High Court Rules, payments and subsequent adjustments were either credited or addressed by an amended sale order, costs and interest were reasonable and supported by tribunal findings and rules, and fraud allegations lacked evidential foundation; accordingly the application to set aside or stay the sale order is dismissed and costs follow the event.
25 May 2020
The s 74 scheme, when read as a whole including its preamble and clauses 1.2, 3.3 and 10.2, retrospectively validated the costs and special levies raised in 2015 and 2016 (including projected costs forming part of the LARP), so there was no arguable defence and summary judgment for the Body Corporate was properly entered; interest and reasonable collection costs are recoverable on those validated levies.
17 May 2016
Court ordered payment of $35,781.90 from the independent solicitors' trust account to Body Corporate 81012, declined to order payment of interest from the fund, awarded costs to the Body Corporate of $17,500 plus disbursements $1,255 to be paid from the fund, ordered remaining trust funds to be paid to Mr Memelink, and granted leave to withdraw the adjudication application.
9 May 2014
The 1972 Act continued to govern the sanctioned s 48 scheme by virtue of transitional provisions; the scheme expressly imported the 1972 Act and rules; AGM and committee minutes established valid delegation to the committee to raise and collect levies; service to the defendants' nominated/addressed contact was established and their denial was held inherently improbable; the defendants raised no arguable defence (their alleged counterclaims were not sufficiently interconnected to operate as equitable set-off); accordingly there was no real question to be tried and summary judgment was granted…
16 Feb 2012
The resolutions passed at Body Corporate general meetings, together with s 34A of the Unit Titles Act, authorised the levies, transfer of the sinking fund to remediation, charging of 10% interest and recovery of collection and legal costs; the defendant's allegations are inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence and do not raise a real defence, so summary judgment is appropriate.