It seems strange to me that some people still think living in strata means you have to put up with whatever inconvenience occurs because someone is enhancing the value of their property. 

The renovator is responsible for the actual disruption and the Owners Corp is responsible to some extent for allowing the work to go ahead in a way that caused more disruption than it should have.

You have a clear and definable financial loss from this, so why not go for it. 

The best advice I think anyone can give at this stage would be to seek legal advice. 

Talk to an experience strata lawyer right away – and our sponsors Sachs Gerace Broome are particularly strong in this area. Give them a call and tell them we sent you.

Yeh

Even when you win a court case you lose.

However if you get a good lawyer, he will be able to write the threatening letters, initiate a case and then use mediation to get you a result. At mediation you won’t get  everything you want, but the costs are cheaper. 

If mediation does not work and you take it to court, you will get more of your costs returned if the court awards you more than you were prepared to settle for.

But at then end of the day , decide whether you want to fight for the principle ( a sure way to do your dough) , whether you can just wear the loss, or whether a mediated settlement will suit you.

( Also maybe one of the lawyers on the forum can kick in. But generally you can expect to get back about 80% of your legal costs. UNLESS your  lawyer is charging to send you birthday and Christmas cards. )

Robert

I was just flicking through some NCAT Appeals decisions (because I am a sad person) and discovered one which was basically about an owner who had lost rental income because of the owners corps failure to fix a leaking roof.

He was awarded damages, but not as much as he wanted, for all the reasons he claimed.

Now, since neither side won everything they wanted, they were ordered to pay their own costs – so be careful about asking for something the Tribunal or a Court won’t agree to.

Getting back to the cost of taking action against your neighbour I wonder if the high costs are because SGB Lawyers said it was a court case rather than a Tribunal hearing. If so, you may well get a greater proportion of your costs back, if you win. 

Truleconcerns

apart from NCAT, most courts awards costs to the winner of the case.

Costs are awarded at the discretion of the court and can follow two methods.

Indemnity costs – pretty much all the money you spent to proceed your claim can be reclaimed from the looser. There are some exclusions but expect to get back 80-90% of your costs

Party to party costs. Your legal costs are assessed on the basis of what the court thinks is a fair price to pay for your legal system. The court applies a standard  rate for the legal work done. Expect to get less back 

However, the court can also just award a $ amount to you if the cost of pursuing your claim is out of proportion to the gal costs. This is designed to stop ltitgants using lots of expensive lawyers to wear down the opposition for a small reward.

Lawyers are like any other service one buys. The more expensive the service, the higher likelihood of a good result. Not all lawyers are equal. Just because you think you have a good winnable case does not mean the lawyer you select will get you that result. Look at your lawyers expertise and track record.

The reason I asked earlier whether you want to fight for the principle is that on your numbers, the cost of processing your action is very high in relation to the amount you are pursuing. Your lawyer should be advising you what an economical path to follow is – not just going to court.

But one in never certain when approaching a court that a) one will win and b) that costs will be awarded.

There is a long line of people who won there cases in court and yet were worse off.