2026/00009930
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 30/1/26 | Applicant | Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.4 MB) |
| 30/1/26 | Applicant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 2.3 MB) |
| 20/3/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 703.9 KB) |
| 20/3/26 | Applicant | Reply (PDF, 2.0 MB) |
| 20/3/26 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 269.3 KB) |
PROCEDURE – the applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of Pike J, dismissing a motion seeking a permanent stay. The proceedings arise from a dispute between the owners of two stratum components of a mixed-use building: Ausbao (the hotel component, and the respondent) and the Owners Corporation (the residential component, and the applicant). The central issue in dispute is the validity of general meetings convened by the strata managing agent, Bright & Duggan, in September 2025, which the Owners Corporation contended were invalid because the agent allegedly acted contrary to the instructions of the Secretary of the Building Management Committee. Ausbao commenced proceedings seeking declarations that the dispute notice was invalid and that the meetings and resolutions were properly convened and valid. The Owners Corporation sought a permanent stay, arguing that the dispute was required to be resolved by expert determination under cl 5 of the Strata Management Statement (SMS). Pike J held that the dispute was not one "about" the SMS within the meaning of cl 5.3 and therefore did not require mandatory expert determination. His Honour concluded that cl 5.2 applies broad to disputes "arising from" the SMS, whereas cl 5.3 (which contains the expert determination procedure) only applies to disputes about the interpretation or application of the SMS. Properly understood, the present dispute was about the scope of authority of the strata managing agent and not the SMS - particularly given that Bright & Duggan were not party to the SMS and could not be compelled to participate. The application for a stay was dismissed with costs. Two issues are raised on appeal. First, whether all disputes between the parties about matters arising from the SMS must be dealt with in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in cl 5. Secondly, if the narrow construction adopted by Pike J is upheld, whether the dispute between the parties was about the "interpretation or application" of the SMS and must be dealt with under those dispute resolution procedures.
Last updated: