Lessons to be learnt from legal cases
| According to the Owners Corporation Managers, www.ocv.org.au, Australia has now surpassed U.S.A. as the most litigious nation (July 2010)
Looking at legal cases provides food for thought. ****************************************** 1 VCAT CLAIM BY A BODY CORPORATE MEMBER AGAINST A MANAGEMENT COMPANY Orders: Struck out for want of jurisdiction Body Corporate member to pay costs. Reasons - included that the body corporate member is not a purchaser. It is the Body Corporate which purchases goods and services and would be the proper plaintiff. VCAT noted that there was 'no issue in this matter'between the Body Corporate and the service provider. ***************** This page is part of: http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/vowncorp/web/index.html. **************** 2. IT PAYS TO BE POLITE A Supreme Court judge described a body corporate member's letter as 'couched in aggressive and demanding terms.' The letter of another member was said to be,'in contradistinction...measured and reasonable in its tone.' **************** 3. KEEPING MINUTES A Supreme Court judge commented that one Body Corporate's Minutes were 'scant but not to the point of scandal.' He described their 'curtness' as discourteous, adding 'I suspect that curtness was deliberate, and as such it was not edifying.' The case involved a dispute between the investment unit holders, and the resident unit holders. The Chair of the Body Corporate Committee held the proxies of approximately 75% of the unit holders, apparently the investment unit holders. The Judge described the dispute as 'protracted, bitter and unnecessary.' It seems that the Chair of the Body Corporate Committee was opposed to the appointment of outside managers to conduct the affairs of the Body Corporate, while the resident owners wanted this. The report of this case is not available on Austlii. Hence there is no link provided here. 4. THE VALIDITY OF BODY CORPORATE RULES A body corporate member applied to the Supreme Court when her body corporate passed a new rule by special resolution, claiming that it was 'invalid'. The judge said: 'I think there is a serious question to be tried as to the validity of this rule.' He added: '....if the plaintiff is correct, some rules which I apprehend are not all that uncommon in residential buildings in the State of Victoria would be invalid; rules such as those, perhaps, which prohibit the owner or occupier of a lot from having a pet on the premises.' This matter lapsed. |
|
Body Corp.Member v Body Corporate Management Body Corporate member's letters read out in Supreme Court Validity of Body Corporate Rules
|
||
 |
This Webpage has been created using the my connected community (mc2) Webpage generator. my connected community (mc2) is funded by the Victorian Government and coordinated by Vicnet
|