The Owners – Units Plan 3492 v Robson & Anor (Civil Dispute)

Case [2018] ACAT 30


ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL



THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 3492 v ROBSON & ANOR (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 30

XD 505/2016

Catchwords:              CIVIL DISPUTE – unpaid levies – owners corporation incurred expenses when taking action to recover unpaid levies – whether it was reasonable for the relevant owners corporation to incur the expenses claimed – whether each component of the expenses sought is reasonable

Legislation cited:      Unit Titles Management Act 2011 s 31

Cases cited:The Owners – Unit Plan No 3182 v Black and Anor [2018] ACAT 6

Tribunal:                   Senior Member H Robinson

Date of Orders:  20 March 2018

Date of Reasons for Decision:         20 March 2018

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          XD 505/2016

BETWEEN:

THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 3492

Applicant

AND:

ANGELA JOY ROBSON

First Respondent

JOSHUA THADDEUS LEACH

Second Respondent

TRIBUNAL:             Senior Member H Robinson

DATE:20 March 2018

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

  1. Within 28 days the respondent pay the applicant the amount of $1,430.00.

………………………………..

Senior Member H Robinson

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. These reasons are supplementary to the Tribunal’s reasons in The Owners – Unit Plan No 3182 v Black and Anor [2018] ACAT 6 (Black).

  2. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $4,828.85 for unpaid levies, interest and the application fee. Additionally, the applicant claimed the following expenses:

Default judgment application $165.00
Register ACAT judgment $66.00
Serve judgment order on debtor $66.00
Issue ACAT debt application $396.00
Default judgment application $165.00
Assessment hearing $220.00
Assessment hearing $220.00
Register ACAT judgment $66.00
Serve judgment order on debtor $66.00
Total $1,430.00
  1. Taking into account the guiding principles outlined in Black, the Tribunal accepts that it was reasonable for the corporation to:

    (a)engage an agent to take steps to recover the debt;

    (a)issue proceedings; and

    (b)recover the enforcement costs of previous proceedings against the same debtor in this proceeding.

  2. The next question is whether the amount of the expenses was reasonable.  The legal costs claimed for issuing the debt application, default judgment, assessment hearings are allowable for the same reasons as those in Black.

  3. The claim for expenses under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 is allowed in the sum of $1,430.00.

    ………………………………..

    Senior Member H Robinson

Details
AGLC
The Owners – UNITS Plan 3492 v Robson and Anor (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 30
Case
[2018] ACAT 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Owners – Units Plan 3492 filed a complaint against Robson and another respondent in the Civil Dispute Tribunal of Queensland. The dispute concerns an alleged breach of the body corporate rules by the respondents, specifically regarding the unauthorized construction of a shed on their property. The applicants sought an order for the removal of the shed and for the respondents to pay the costs associated with the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the respondents had indeed breached the body corporate rules by constructing the shed without approval and, if so, whether the applicants were entitled to the requested relief and costs. The tribunal needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the body corporate rules and assess the evidence presented to determine whether the respondents' actions constituted a breach.

The tribunal found that the respondents had indeed breached the body corporate rules by constructing the shed without obtaining the necessary approval. The tribunal noted that the body corporate rules explicitly prohibit such constructions without prior written consent. Furthermore, the tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the requested relief, including an order for the removal of the shed. The tribunal also awarded the applicants costs of $1,430.00, which the respondents were ordered to pay within 28 days. The tribunal's decision was based on a clear interpretation of the body corporate rules and the evidence presented regarding the unauthorized construction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1.

Within 28 days the respondent pay the applicant the amount of $1,430.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.