THE OWNERS UNITS PLAN NO 3609 v CHEN [2018] ACAT 26 | Case summary

The applicant submitted that paralegal staff, amongst others, undertook significant work for which no payment was sought.
This is one of those unfortunate cases where the expenses claimed exceed the amount of the debt.
Partially, the high level of expenses is explained by the application including costs associated with enforcement action in relation to a previous Tribunal decision. The Ruling Tribunal[1] determined that the costs of enforcement incurred in the Magistrates Court against the same owner are recoverable in subsequent Tribunal proceedings as 'expenses' under section 31 of the Unit Titles Management Act 2011 (UTM Act) despite no order for costs having been made in the enforcement proceedings, provided the expenses were 'reasonably incurred'. The respondent made no submissions, and there was no evidence before the Tribunal that suggested that it was unnecessary or unreasonable to commence enforcement action in the Magistrates Court, or to seek a garnishee order as part of that process.
Taking into account the guiding principles outlined in Black, the Tribunal accepts that it was reasonable for the applicant to engage a professional agent to assist with recovery of the debt. There was, in any case, no evidence of any circumstances that would cast doubt on the reasonableness of that decision.
Having determined that it was reasonable to commence legal action, the Tribunal must determine whether each of the expenses claimed are reasonable.
The expenses for 'debt recovery stages 1-3' are expenses incurred by the strata managment agency and I allow these in full as the amounts claimed are reasonable. The cost of the demand letter is allowed in full as the amount claimed is reasonable and there is no apparent 'doubling up' or anything to suggest the expenses are unreasonable.
The use of investigators was considered in Black at paragraphs 75 to 78. The evidence provided to the Tribunal in relation to this matter indicated that significant investigative work needed to be undertaken to identify the current address and whereabouts of the owner and to obtain details of the owner's assets that were available to enforce the judgment obtained. Having regard to this evidence, the Tribunal accepts these expenses were reasonably incurred and are reasonable amounts and allows the amounts claimed for investigation visits, investigations and garnishee orders in full.

THE OWNERS UNITS PLAN NO 3609 v CHEN

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (2)

THE OWNERS UNITS PLAN NO 3609 v CHEN (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 26 (20 March 2018)