Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 55

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 55 Hearing dates: 26 July 2016 Date of orders: 28 July 2016 Decision date: 28 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K Ross, General Member Decision: On 26 July 2016 the following orders were made:

1. Pursuant to ss 156 and 157, and in order to resolve a dispute between the parties the Tribunal orders that, in accordance with s 67 (2) the increase in site fees referred to in the letter dated 15 April 2016 is not payable because the notice does not comply with s 67 (4). Legislation Cited: Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jill Edmonds (applicant) Paultrus Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: File Number(s): RC 16/24887RC 16/22676 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision 1. The applicant seeks an order under s 157(1)(b) of the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 ('RC Act'), that the site increase in the notice dated 15 April 2016 is not payable on the basis that the notice does not comply with the requirements of s 67(4), because it did not contain an explanation for the increase, and because, she alleges, the explanation later provided was not genuine, and was misleading and deceptive. In addition the applicant argues that the letter of explanation cannot validate the notice of site increase which was found by the Tribunal on 11 May 2016 not to contain an explanation for the increase as required by s 67(4)(c). 2. The respondent argues that the application is misconceived as the Tribunal has determined the matter. The respondent says that the Tribunal did not declare the notice to be invalid, but ordered the respondent to provide an explanation for the increase. The respondent says that it has complied with that order. The applicant is estopped from having the Tribunal redetermine the issue. The respondent says that it will suffer particular disadvantage if the Tribunal is now to make the order sought by the applicant. If that order had been sought on 11 May 2016 and granted by the Tribunal, the respondent could have served a fresh notice then. If the order is made now, the respondent has lost a period of 2 1/2 months in increased site fees. In response the applicant says that her application is in response to the respondent's letter which did not cure the defect in the notice. Accordingly she is entitled to seek an order that the increase is not payable.