17 Sept 2020
The stay was refused because there was no substantive arguable defence to the Body Corporate's claim: the special levy was validly struck and others had paid, the alleged procedural failure did not demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice likely to result if enforcement proceeded, and the interests of other unit owners and creditors outweighed the applicant's grounds for a stay.
7 Feb 2017
The 2012 unanimous special resolution permitted the Body Corporate to treat the account as an optional contingency fund under s 118, so expenditure on unbudgeted professional and legal costs associated with remediation was lawful; the Committee had been validly delegated authority (s 108), properly notified (reg 22), and its contemporaneous email exchanges constituted valid decision-making or, at minimum, were capable of ratification by subsequent special resolution; therefore the special levy of 13 July 2014 was valid and the plaintiffs' declarations fail, and judgment on the counterclaim fo…
6 Jul 2016
The presumption in r 15.23 was displaced because after the applicant commenced proceedings the respondent took remedial steps (resolutions of 14 December 2015) which rendered the applicant's relief nugatory; the change of circumstances caused by the respondent made it just and equitable that the applicant not pay costs and that the respondent pay costs to the applicant.
19 Jul 2012
Leave to bring summary judgment was granted on liability only because the approved s 48 Scheme and its wide agent and levy powers authorised the committee to raise and recover the special levy and related costs, the defendants failed to establish an arguable equitable set-off or a defence based on breach, and while the defendants are indebted the quantum is not sufficiently established due to accounting inconsistencies requiring further material; interest on reasonable borrowings to bridge cashflow is recoverable under s16 powers.