The Owners – Strata Plan 50946 v Hong [2018] NSWLC 3

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners – Strata Plan 50946 v Hong [2018] NSWLC 3 Hearing dates: 19 February 2018 Date of orders: 05 March 2018 Decision date: 05 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Assessor Olischlager Decision: Verdict and judgment for the Defendant Catchwords: CIVIL LAW - Small Claims - Strata schemes - Management and control - Unpaid strata levies - Reasonable expenses Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 100, 101 Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (repealed) s 79(2) Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 85(1), 86(2A) Cases Cited: Lollis v Loulatzis (No 2) [2008] VSC 35 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 The Owners –Strata Plan No 52098 v Khalil [2014] NSWLC 2 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Owners Strata Plan 50946 (Plaintiff) Fiona Pei Fang Hong (Defendant) Representation: Ms Smith (for the Plaintiff) Ms Hong (self-represented) File Number(s): 2017/000048446 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. The plaintiff commenced these proceedings on 15 February 2017 seeking to recover from the defendant, Ms Hong, the sum of $5,071.41 for unpaid levies together with interest and expenses that had been incurred as at the date of filing the claim together with the ongoing expenses of these proceedings. 2. Ms Hong is the owner of Lot 271 within the residential strata complex at Pyrmont. As at the date of the hearing of these proceedings the levies and interest that were claimed to be outstanding. The plaintiff maintained the proceedings to recover expenses which, as at the date of the hearing exceed the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff has abandoned the amount that exceeds the jurisdiction limit of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court. Ms Hong does not dispute her liability to pay the levies that have been raised, however, she states that the plaintiff has failed to provide an accurate record of her account or an explanation as to the interest charges that appear on the account. Ms Hong disputes that she should be liable for expenses that have been incurred by the plaintiff.