Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd v P.J. Hanley
[2002] QDC 87
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd v P.J. Hanley[2002] QDC 87
- Add to List
Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd v P.J. Hanley[2002] QDC 87
Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd v P.J. Hanley[2002] QDC 87
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd v P.J. Hanley and Ors [2002] QDC 087 |
PARTIES: | Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd (respondent) (appellant) v P.J. Hanley (first respondent) Commissioner of Body Corporate Community Management (second respondent) Body Corporate for “Noosa on the Beach” community titles scheme 6417 (applicant) (third respondent) Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd (first applicant) Hollis Partners Pty Ltd (second applicant) v Body Corporate for “Noosa on the Beach” community titles scheme 6417 (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal 9/01; Application 545/01 |
DIVISION: | District Court |
PROCEEDING: | Chambers |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 May 2002 |
DELIVERED AT: | Maroochydore |
HEARING DATE: | 15 March 2002 |
JUDGE: | K. S. Dodds DCJ |
ORDER: | Order the applicant Body Corporate for Noosa on the Beach CTS 6417 pay 75 percent of the respondent Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd’s costs of and incidental to the application. |
CATCHWORDS: | Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, Part 12, Chapter 6; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rr 5. |
COUNSEL: | Mr Crisp for Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd Mr Carrigan for Body Corporate “Noosa on the Beach” |
SOLICITORS: | Klooger Phillips Scott for Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd Short, Punch & Greatorix for Body Corporate “Noosa on the Beach” |
- [1]On 24 January 2002 I dealt with two applications. The first application was by the Body Corporate for “Noosa on the Beach” Community Title Scheme 6417 seeking that an appeal by Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd, pursuant to Part 12 Chapter 6 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (“the Act”) against a decision of an adjudicator under the Act (appeal No.9/01 District Court Maroochydore), be struck out on the grounds it was commenced out of time. I dismissed this application for reasons which I published at that time.
- [2]Appeal 9/01 was an appeal by Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd against a decision of an adjudicator dismissing its application that:
- certain motions of an extraordinary general meeting of the Body Corporate held on 19 March 2001 were special resolutions and were lost;
- the motions were invalid;
- a vote for Lot 19 could not be counted.
The second application filed (application No. 545/01) was by Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd and Hollis Partners Pty Ltd against the Body Corporate for “Noosa on the Beach” Community Titles Scheme 6417 seeking that an appeal by the Body Corporate (appeal No.24/01 District Court Maroochydore) be struck out or dismissed and further that the Body Corporate be restrained from opposing the appeal in appeal No. 9/01. I also dismissed this application for reasons which I published at that time.
- [3]These reasons relate to the costs of the application by the Body Corporate for appeal 9/01 to be struck out on the grounds it was commenced out of time. The costs of the other applications were dealt with at the time.
- [4]At the time I dismissed the Body Corporate’s application, I held a view that each party should pay their own costs of the application. However, it was submitted that the respondent to the application had not had a proper opportunity to make submissions about costs. Consequently, I adjourned the question for submissions to be made. That has now been done. See submissions by Mr Crisp of counsel dated 24 January 2002.
- [5]In my reasons of 24 January 2002 in paragraph six I expressed the view that it should have been a simple matter as soon as it was apparent the applicant was mistaken in the filing date of the notice of appeal to have corrected that mistake. Rule 5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) reinforces that view.
- [6]On the other hand the applicant’s mistake was careless. Either the filing date was apparent on the service copy of the notice of appeal or a simple check with the registry before proceeding with the application would have revealed the error the applicant was proceeding under.
- [7]I order the applicant Body Corporate for Noosa on the Beach CTS 6417 pay 75 percent of the respondent Hollis Holdings Pty Ltd’s costs of and incidental to the application.