Welcome to the blog of NSW strata investigative journalism
| From: | Mike Smythe BCS Strata Management |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Freeman Pica Group |
| CC: | Billy Chau BCS Strata Management, Peter Le Breton Pica Group, Gary Mills BCS Strata Management |
| Subject: | FW: SP52948 and Lot 158 CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED |
| Date: | 25/11/15, 11:55 am |
Hi Greg,
Below is the advice received on Tuesday from Adrian Miller.
Many thanks.
Kind Regards,
Mike Smythe
Branch Manager
Dip of Mgt (Strata)
Corporate Services
Level 2, 51 Rawson Street, NSW, 2121
From: Bruce Copland
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 10:13 AM
To: Mike Smythe
Subject: FW: SP52948 and Lot 158 CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED
Mike
This is privileged correspondence related to past and future litigation.
I await your comment. We also need to think about the timing of delivering the letter very carefully.
From: Solicitor Adrian Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 9:53 AM
To: Bruce Copland
Subject: RE: SP52948 and Lot 158
The owners corporation can apply to the Supreme Court to have Mr Lot 158 declared a vexatious litigant. I doubt that application would be successful at this stage because Mr Lot 158 has not yet made sufficient unsuccessful claims against the owners corporation.
Alternatively, the owners corporation can apply for any claims Mr Lot 158 makes in NCAT to be dismissed if he has previously made the same claims unsuccessfully or the deed of release prevents him from doing so.
But there is no simple alternative to Supreme Court proceedings to have Mr Lot 158 declared a vexatious litigant.
Regards
Adrian Mueller
Solicitor
From: Bruce Copland
Sent: Monday, 23 November 2015 7:21 PM
To: Adrian Mueller
Subject: SP52948 and Lot 158
Adrian
Regrettably it appears that Mr Lot 158 is set on self-destruction by beginning yet another round of NCAT proceedings beginning with mediation.
Without getting into detail (as it needs to run past EC first) are you able to you tell me if there is any procedure available similar to a "vexatious litigant" in other courts that is available to the Owners Corporation to pursue given that this is repetitive and possibly malicious.
We will I suspect be back on the old cycle of whether or not the latest claims breach the Deed of Release and the wallowing through mounds of self-generated argument devoid of evidence and bereft of fact and I will come back to you on that once we have determined the commercially sensible way to approach this. It's clear that the Deed of Release approach did not stop him, hence my question as to whether any other process is what we should be instructing you to follow.
I fully appreciate that your response can only be non-formal guidance to suggest to the EC what approach could be taken with legal help.
