• This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
  • Creator
    Topic
  • #11443

    I’m trying to work out how NCAT operates. I was under the mistaken impression that it makes rulings based on strata law, but my first experience is that it seems to go wherever the tribunal member wants it to go.

    A complainant took our EC to the tribunal to challenge an EC outcome they didn’t agree with. I was there to represent the EC. I spent a few days gathering past minutes and contacting the management agents for clarification and set up an evidence-based defence, with references to strata laws etc. There was also an error of fact in the complainant’s submission I wished to address. 

    The complainant turned up with virtually nothing. We had minutes that documented everything and as such thought he had not a leg to stand on. 

    What happened at NCAP however was that I was grilled for about 20 mins by the arbitrator as to why I/We had not granted him these things. Points of Strata Law, mention of minutes, even requesting to see some of his “evidence” was knocked back, thwarted or summarily dismissed. The arbitration member had the stage and I could barely get a word in edgeways. I got the feeling I was being worn down in the hope I would agree to his demands and close the case quickly. I did get to table some things toward the end, but it was a marathon. What I presented was ironclad but made no difference to the direction of the proceedings, which surprised me.

    So the question is, what does NCAT do and what rulings do they or can they make? Can they force a committee to perform an action they do not agree with and seemingly has no basis in strata law as its commonly understood? And how is one to submit evidence in a logical order or challenge the complainant’s submission if it just goes in the direction the panel member decides? 

    Are there any rulings made at the end of proceedings based on strata law or is this just a gladiator match between myself and the complainant, the outcome of which (ie one side decides to fall on his sword) is documented by the arbitration member and becomes enforceable? Any insights would be helpful as I need to return to the bear pit in a few weeks to recommence where we left off.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.