Hadley v SP30558: denial of procedural fairness
Hadley v The Owners Strata Plan No 30558 [2026] NSWCATAP 302
In short
The Appeal Panel found that a self-represented lot owner was denied procedural fairness in the determination of her compensation claim.
The Tribunal had rejected the lot owner’s recent affidavit without reading it, while permitting the owners corporation to rely on a recently served affidavit.
The procedural deficiencies were assessed cumulatively, rather than by reference to one decisive incident.
The appeal was allowed, the original orders were set aside and the proceedings were remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.
Background
The lot owner brought proceedings concerning water ingress, mould and damage associated with the scheme’s roof, waterproofing in an adjoining bathroom and a tree on common property. The Tribunal found breaches of s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Act) and ordered remedial works. However, it dismissed the lot owner’s claim for compensation under s 106(5) of the Act.
The lot owner was self-represented. The owners corporation was legally represented but had not filed a points of defence or evidence in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions. Shortly before the hearing, it nevertheless sought to rely on affidavit evidence concerning alleged unauthorised works.
Decision
The Appeal Panel examined the hearing transcript as a whole. A significant issue was the Tribunal’s refusal to admit the lot owner’s affidavit of 24 September 2025 without first reading it, assessing its possible relevance or determining whether its admission would prejudice the owners corporation. By contrast, the owners corporation was permitted to rely on an affidavit served shortly before the hearing.
The Appeal Panel also considered the limited hearing time, the owners corporation’s lack of preparation, the treatment of the lot owner’s documents and the circumstances in which she was required to cross-examine a newly introduced witness. These matters cumulatively disadvantaged her presentation of the compensation claim.
The Appeal Panel did not find any conscious failure by the Tribunal to act fairly. It nevertheless concluded that the cumulative conduct of the hearing denied the lot owner procedural fairness. It was unnecessary to determine the remaining appeal grounds or the allegation of apprehended bias.
Outcome
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal’s orders were set aside and the proceedings were remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal. The Appeal Panel stated that only the compensation claim required rehearing.
