@leif said:
… does that not mean that in any event Dr Thoo was not entitled to damages for breach of statutory duty as the duty had not been breached
Or does it mean as mostly assumed that in any event Dr Thoo was not entitled to damages for breach of statutory duty as damages are not awarded for breach of statutory duty
This is what Beverley Hoskinson-Green wrote: “a breach of statutory duty by an Owners Corporation does not give an owner or occupier a right to sue the Owners Corporation for damages.”
This what Teys Lawyers wrote: “A breach of Section 62 by an owners corporation does not give rise to an action for damages for breach of statutory duty.”
So two highly experience strata lawyers take the latter position – a breach of statutory duties under section 62 does not leave the Owners Corp open to legal action for damages.
So again, please, unless someone has a legal opinion to the contrary, can we stop arguing about the semantics and start thinking about what that means to the majority of strata owners in this state?