- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Obviously, I am prepared to pay for this. It is for a Section 62 issue that has dragged on since 2009.
The ones I have already talked to and ruled out are Grace Lawyers and Makinson d’Apice.
By fierce, I mean someone with a strong litigation background who will fight for me to win.
-
Replies
-
@nyonyakay said:
Obviously, I am prepared to pay for this. It is for a Section 62 issue that has dragged on since 2009.The ones I have already talked to and ruled out are Grace Lawyers and Makinson d’Apice.
By fierce, I mean someone with a strong litigation background who will fight for me to win.
We were represented by Michael Teys on some matters. He took no nonsense. He has since gone more into strata management I think but might be taking business.
Michael Teys has indeed gone back into strata management and i have no idea if he is still practising as a lawyer in terms of litigation.
Having ruled out two of my preferred choices already, I would say David Le Page if you want a fighter and Stephen Goddard if you want a negotiator. Also consider Christopher Kerin who is an expert on building defects. He used to work with Michael Teys but has set up a new practice, KERIN BENSON, with experienced strata litigator Allison Benson.
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.
I also have a little bit of experience with Chris Kerin who provided good clear written advice for us a few years ago when working with Teys. I heard Alison Benson speak once for the OCN (ACT) and she gave a good impression, though perhaps more as one who would prefer to negotiate. Of course, she might do fight just as well if she has to, I don’t know.
We have used David Le Page and he is excellent.
Incidentally, be wary of lawyers/advisors who are aggressive/fierce at tge outset, it doesn’t achieve anything.
On a matter for us Michael Teys gave us some good advice: He suggested we call a meeting of the owners at which he could explain why it was we needed to pass some resolutions in the manner he recommended. We had organised our parking arrangements since the 1980s in a way that had become untenable, but a few owners were suspicious that the EC was trying to take away some rights that owners believed they had. We weren’t, quite the contrary, we were trying to reinstate what we all thought we had by doing it correctly and legally and ensuring fairness and equity by, at the same time, also allocating parking for those who had missed out under the old regime.
Teys correctly advised that we would face a bunch of people who were angry and defensive and it would not be pleasant or helpful for the EC to wear the full force of that. Instead he suggested that he be invited to explain the situation and deal with the flak. It was very productive. It got a lot of people on side for what we had to do. However, a few remained unreachable. Since the resolution in the ACT required an unopposed resolution, and a few still voted no, we still needed to go to the tribunal with an application to give effect to the failed motion. It helped that nearly everyone had supported it. The objections of the few who did not were found to be ‘unreasonable’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.