The Owners – Strata Plan No 15924 v Vladimir Romualoas Onuskevicius-Jacyna by his Tutor the Protective Commissioner [2010] NSWLC 18

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: The Owners – Strata Plan No 15924 v Vladimir Romualoas Onuskevicius-Jacyna by his Tutor the Protective Commissioner [2010] NSWLC 18

JURISDICTION: Civil

PARTIES: Plaintiff- The Owners – Strata Plan No 15924 Defendant- Vladimir Romualoas Onuskevicius-Jacyna by his Tutor the Protective Commissioner

FILE NUMBER: 35437/09

PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 07/06/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Heilpern

CATCHWORDS: Strata, Procedural, Transfer of Proceedings

LEGISLATION CITED: Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 Local Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2005

McClymont v The Owners of Strata Plan No 12139 NSWSC 276 Owners of Strata Plan 36131 v Dimitriou [2009] NSWCA 27 CASES CITED: Coshott v The Owners of Strata Plan No. 48892 [2006] NSWSC 308 Coshott v The Owners SP 48892 [2008] NSWSC 854 The Owners of Strata Plan 66459 v Paul John Clancy 69642/08 26 May 2009 - Unreported

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Mr Radman Mr Raine

ORDERS: On the preliminary question – for the Plaintiff

Reasons for Decision Introduction 1 The plaintiff is an owners corporation, where the defendant owns Lot 5. There are ten lots in the strata scheme. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant in 2005 and 2006 for unpaid levies (which were from as early as 2004), and then sought and obtained a sequestration order in an effort to recover the debts. The Protective Commissioner became involved, and the road to recovery of the debts was long and costly for the plaintiff. Eventually the debts were paid in November and December of 2008. This payment included levies, interest and costs up to the date of bankruptcy but not after that date. The defendant failed to make other levy contributions and the plaintiff commenced these proceedings to recover them. In addition, in these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to recover the legal costs incurred since the date of bankruptcy for the 2005 and 2006 judgments. Thus the amended claim seeks