Ancestor,
Your post has me a little perplexed. dnighttime already had a favorable ruling from an adjudicator and went for a penalties hearing for non-compliance at the CTTT before a Tribunal member to have the orders enforced. It was at the penalties hearing that the member issued a decision that the installation of a rug and runner meant that the other party had complied with the adjudicators orders and dismissed the penalties application. dnighttime is now in the unfortunate position of having to appeal the penalties dismissal before the District Court. dnighttimes avenues at the CTTT regarding this matter are exhausted and the matter needs to be appealed to a higher court. Why are we still discussing having this resolved at the CTTT. Your post is confusing at best. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, however my gut feel based in this thread is that dnighttime will have good grounds for appeal. I cannot find any reference in the SSMA 1996 nor the model by-laws to say that the BCA re noise transmission is relevant. It simply refers to a subjective statement that the noise should not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of another lot. I agree that dnighttime should get sound legal representation as the District Court is a costs jurisdiction and should dnighttime prevail can be awarded costs and possibly damages. the converse is true should dnighttime not prevail. Can we be clear that the next avenue is a higher court and not muddy the waters with further talk of hearings at the CTTT