Skip to main content

Rule of Law and Tribunal in Sydney


On the 24th February 2015 (six months ago) the Owners Corporation of an apartment block lodged an application to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) seeking orders to appoint compulsory manager of a strata scheme and to refund the fees paid to the former strata manager.

The application caused by negligent and inacceptable behaviour by strata manager and included the following concerns:

-       No proper service for two years

-       Breaching of the rules and not following the orders of Owners Corporation

-       Spending money on items that were not agreed or ordered by Owners Corporation

-       Not servicing fire safety inspections and insurance for the building appropriately

-       Other issues  

All the documentation related to the above-mentioned problems has been submitted to the Tribunal.
Finally the Owners Corporation has received the Tribunal decision (4th August 2015). The adjudicator on the matter decided to dismiss the application.

The first reason for dismissal is:

“The applicant has not provided a cogent set of submissions in this matter. Rather a bundle of documents has been provided without adequate explanation of their significance. It is therefore difficult to make out the nature of this claim”.

Very interesting. The nature of the claim is described in the application form. The “bundle of documents” was provided as evidence to the claim being reasonable and serious.

Further:

“If the Owners Corporation seeks to change the strata manager it can take steps to do this in the normal manner pursuant to its contractual rights and obligations”

Well, that’s why the Owners Corporation reached out to the Tribunal! Because the strata manager didn’t make it to resolve the case in “normal manner” and breached the “rights and obligations”. All that was in the application to the Tribunal.

And finally:

“This entire application appears to be misconceived. It may be appropriate for the applicant to obtain legal advice regarding the issues which are raised in the context of this application.”

I think this is awesome response. The adjudicator is saying “your matter is too difficult – I dismiss it”. Well it was clear to the applicants that the matter is not easy! They required a decision on the matter, not an advice to seek legal help.

In addition to this “decision” it took about two years for Owners Corporation to realise that strata manager is doing wrong actions and is useless, plus about half a year to confirm that the application to Tribunal is required, plus three(!) weeks to sign the paperwork before it was finally lodged with the Tribunal. 

Altogether makes almost 3 years.


Nice work!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wine - 2011 Brown Brothers Crouchen Riesling

Very nice wine with fruity taste - peach and pear: Consumed with Hungarian salami. Tasting notes .
Post a Comment
Read more

Scrum - Team Culture and Wall Manifesto

In the Scrum framework one of the key components is the wall and daily stand-up. In some organisations I worked with the whole concept of the wall is not accepted by many developers, because of the stand-up necessity and "time waste". Very often all that methodology is used for the sake of methodology and not to achieve what we actually do - adding or creating value to our customer (usually called "The Business"). I can understand frustration that is caused by the wall and stand-up process. From the software developer perspective it is really a waste of time for the following reasons: 1. In 95% of cases developers are head down working like hell delivering valuable outcomes that they are accountable for. Extra effort to go to the wall, staying there for 15-30 minutes and listening or not listening to what others were doing yesterday and will be doing tomorrow is annoying for them; 2. The mere fact of having to do something mandatory to do that looks like...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mastering The Multitasking

There is usually two distinct perspectives on multi-tasking: 1. Multitasking is counterproductive. We get distracted by multiple tasks that all get our way and fight for our scarce attention, time and resources. This leads to a common fallacy that if you do multiple activities “at a time” you are not doing good work in any of those. 2. Multitasking is a way of getting many things done in a short period of time or in a long run. Indeed it can be either a disaster or a great helper depending on how it is used and practiced. Most recent research shows that we don’t do multiple tasks purely in parallel or simultaneously. That means we don’t purely multi-task, but switch between tasks and execute them one at a time, but by spending very small timeframes on each task. A good example from the history is a story about Julius Caesar capabilities in that area. Plutarch writes, “Caesar disciplined himself so far as to be able to dictate letters from on horseback, and to give directi...
1 comment
Read more