Bailey v Kismet Riverside Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 56;

(1) The Applicant's raised the variation of service method throughout the Community with some notices delivered to the mailbox at the Park, with others delivered by email or to post to the site owner's primary residential addresses and sought a declaration that the notice was invalid on the basis that the preferred method of service was not complied with, or that the Notices were not effective as the Notices were not issued to the community simultaneously.

(2) The Applicant relied upon a hand written note made by a resident on a Notice indicating the Notice was received by them on 8 December 2025 in asserting the 60 day notice timeframe had not been met.

(3) The Tribunal considers the relevant date for the Notice to be 5 December 2025, with the relevant timeframes for effective service dates running from that date depending on the method of service. The increased site fees were taken to come into effect from 14 February 2024. Even allowing for postal service, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Notice provided greater than 60 days as required by section 67(5) of the Act.

(4) There is insufficient evidence provided to the Tribunal in relation to various resident's preferred or nominated method of service to make any finding that notices were issued other than in accordance with the service form nominated by the relevant site owners.

(5) The Tribunal does not accept that the Legislation requires that all notices must be delivered at an identical time to all residents- e.g. Applicant submitted that if some notices posted, and some emailed according to site owner preference, the emails should not issue until such time as the notices posted were deemed received.

(6) The purpose of a site increase notice is to inform residents of increase in site fees as set out in the Act.

(7) In this case notice was received by the Applicants, enabling them to proceed with a Collective Application through both the mediation and Tribunal process to ensure whether the site fees were excessive could be considered and adjudicated on by the Tribunal.

(8) The Site increase notice must contain sufficient information to provide the basis on which the proposed site increase was calculated and required. This component of the Notice requirements and Tribunal findings will be outlined in further detail below.

(9) Whilst throughout these proceedings, the Applicants have sought further from the Respondents, who have obliged in providing further details, invoices, profit and loss statements and variation of calculations to meet Resident's concerns in respect of the calculated increase, the Tribunal was satisfied in this instance that sufficient information was provided to the Residents to explain the basis for the calculation of the site increase within the Notice.

(10) The Tribunal notes that as per Edmonds v Paultrus Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 55, it is necessary to disclose an explanation for the increased within the Notice. There is no minimum amount of detail or particular form required.

(11) Having carefully considered the Notice issued in this case the Tribunal is satisfied the information contained within the Notice of Site Increase was sufficient as it outlines sufficient detail to provide an explanation of the site increase calculated.

(12) The Tribunal is satisfied the Notice of site increase is a valid notice as required by 67 of the Act.

(13) It is therefore necessary to consider the matters raised in s74 as being relevant to determining whether the increase is 'excessive'.