Current Page

[Jimmy-T]

@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? 

 

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

Quote