NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v The Owners – Strata Plan No 63429 [2017] NSWCATCD 7 Hearing dates: 14 October 2016 Submissions closed 6 December 2016 Decision date: 31 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: P Boyce, Senior Member Decision: 1 The appeal is allowed; 2 The Adjudicator's orders of 21 April 2016 dismissing the appellants application are revoked: 3 In place of the Adjudicator's orders the Owners Corporation of SP63429 is ordered to effect all repairs to common property necessary to prevent water ingress into main bedroom on the upper storey of Lot 18, on or before 30 May 2017. Catchwords: STRATA-appeal from Adjudicator's decision ;extent of common property; liability for repairs. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 Cases Cited: Allen v Proprietors of Strata Plan Non 2110 [1970] 3 NSWR 339 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Appellant: Anne Davis Respondent: Owners Corporation SP63429 Representation: Appellant: Slater and Gordon Respondent: J.S.Mueller & Co File Number(s): SCS 16/22935 Publication restriction: Unrestricted
REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This is an appeal against an Adjudicator's orders made in file number SCS16/08945 on 21 April 2016 dismissing an application for orders that: The Owners Corporation of SP63429 effect all repairs to common property necessary to prevent water ingress into main bedroom on the upper storey, in accordance with the Tender of F & SJ Maione Building Contractors dated 30 November 2015; The Owners Corporation of SP63429 pay to the owner of Lot 18 the amount of $11,012.00 being the cost of replacing the owner's damaged carpet, in accordance with the quote of Andersons Carpets dated 1 December 2015; The Owners Corporation of SPP63429 pay the Applicant's legal costs. 1. The applicant for the adjudication is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The respondent in the adjudication is the respondent in this appeal.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate