Ramid Investments v Owners Corporation SP 45205 [2014] NSWCATCD 135

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ramid Investments v Owners Corporation SP 45205 [2014] NSWCATCD 135 Hearing dates: 3 and 4 February 2014 Decision date: 21 February 2014 Before: J Smith, Senior Member Decision: All three applications are dismissed. Leave is granted for the parties to file and exchange short written submissions on the issue of costs only within 14 days of the date of these orders. In that circumstance the submissions will be considered in chambers and a decision published. If any party seeks a hearing on the issue of costs they shall make a written request to the Registrar within 14 days of the date of these orders. Legislation Cited: Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (SSMA) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ramid Investments (Applicant) Owners Corporation SP 45205 (Respondent) File Number(s): SCS 12/31156, 12/46517, 12/41696

reasons for decision

APPLICATIONS 1Application for adjudication SCS 12/00509 seeking five orders from an adjudicator was filed on 4 January 2012 and was dismissed by the adjudicator on 18 May 2012. On 6 June 2012 application SCS 12/ 31156 which is an appeal against that decision was filed in the Tribunal by Mr Gamayunov on behalf of Ramid Investments Pty Ltd. 2The application was listed for a number of directions hearings and on 23 October 2013, solicitors then acting for the applicant filed documents that clearly set out the orders sought in respect of that appeal. The orders sought were more limited than those sought on the original application for adjudication but were essentially for orders * to prevent the Owners Corporation from entering into any building management and/or caretaker agreement with parties carrying on a hotel letting, or any other, business within the strata scheme, * to prevent the Owners Corporation from entering into building management or caretaker contracts for a term exceeding 12 months, * to amend special by-law 3A to prevent the proprietor of lot 1 (or a related party) from providing the services of caretaker or building manager, * to require the Owners Corporation to enforce compliance with special by-law 3A by the proprietors of lot 1. 3Similarly, application for adjudication SCS 12/46517 was clarified by solicitors acting for the applicant and limited to seek orders * to invalidate all decisions of the Owners Corporation made after 25 July 2012, including those made by those people purporting to constitute the executive committee, * to convene an EGM for the purpose of considering two motions requisitioned by the applicant. 4Application for adjudication SCS 12/41696 sought orders for the compulsory appointment, pursuant to the SSMA s 162 or s 183B, of a strata managing agent (Conti Property Group). 5On 19 July 2013 all three matters were set down for hearing on the issue of whether they should be struck out pursuant to the provisions of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act s 30. 6The strike out application came before Senior Member Meadows on 24 September 2013. In the event, the application to strike out any or all of the matters was not successful. The Senior Member published written reasons for that decision and set all three matters down for a two day hearing. At that time, in order to clarify the orders being sought and the evidence to be relied upon, the Senior Member made directions for exchange of documentary material. 7It is important to note that although the applicant did not have legal representation at the time of the strike out application, it did engage solicitors who filed and served documents in response to the directions made by the Tribunal. Considerable time has been spent during the hearing arguing about the adequacy of the applicant's response to those directions and the admissibility of documentary material not provided in accordance with the directions. 8All three matters came before me for hearing on 3 and 4 February 2014. The parties were represented as noted above and all matters were heard concurrently. The evidence in one was considered as evidence in all three.