Between July 2023 and March 2024, a single lot owner at a 237-unit building in St Leonards filed eight separate Supreme Court proceedings against their owners corporation. Every single case was dismissed. The owner was ordered to pay the owners corporation's legal costs — on an indemnity basis.
It's a cautionary tale about what happens when a strata dispute escalates beyond all reason — and a reminder that every owner in a building bears the consequences, not just the parties involved.
View SP 93392 on StrataChecks
See the strata plan for 10 Atchison Street, St Leonards — all 8 tribunal cases visible.
8
Supreme Court cases filed
0
Cases won
~8 mo
Span of litigation
237
Lots in building
Eight cases, eight dismissals
The proceedings — all brought in the Supreme Court of NSW — unfolded in rapid succession. The published decisions, numbered sequentially by the court, tell the story:
Case commenced by summons instead of statement of claim. Court struck out the summons as irregular. Suppression order for plaintiff's identity refused.
Application for judge to recuse herself. Allegation of private communications between chambers and the other party. Court found the allegation "unfounded" and "does not rise above anything other than mere assertion." Refused.
Application to set aside an earlier judgment. Court found it was an attempt to re-argue matters already decided. Proper avenue is the Court of Appeal, not a fresh application. Dismissed.
Documents filed in breach of a stay order. Court ordered them removed from the court file. Application found to be a "collateral attack" on an NCAT determination. Dismissed.
Owners corporation applied for summary dismissal, citing plaintiff's conduct increasing costs. Court noted the application was reinvigorated without prior notice to plaintiff.
Summary dismissal granted. Court found proceedings were "frivolous or vexatious" and the plaintiff showed "an unwillingness or inability" to replead. Allegations of corruption against the court. Indemnity costs ordered.
Application for recusal (again) refused. Application to set aside orders refused. Court found plaintiff "alleges judge had hidden and malicious agenda" without basis.
Gross sum costs order granted against plaintiff. Court found plaintiff's conduct "significantly increased costs and disbursements" incurred by the owners corporation.
The pattern of escalation
What's striking is the escalation pattern. The plaintiff didn't just file one case and lose — they filed repeatedly, each time with increasing hostility toward the court itself. The progression from “incorrect procedure” (No 1) to “the judge has a hidden and malicious agenda” (No 7) is a textbook escalation spiral.
Several features are common in these cases:
Collateral attacks
Rather than appealing through proper channels, the plaintiff filed new proceedings challenging previous decisions. The court identified this as a “collateral attack” — using a fresh proceeding to relitigate something already decided, instead of using the designated appeal process.
Recusal applications
Two separate applications asked the judge to recuse herself. Both were based on allegations of bias and corruption that the court found completely unsupported. Repeated recusal applications can themselves become a form of abuse of process.
Indemnity costs
The court ordered indemnity costs — not just ordinary party/party costs, but costs on a higher scale that compensates the winning party for a greater proportion of their actual legal expenses. This is a strong judicial signal that the litigation was unreasonable.
What this costs everyone else
Here's the part that matters if you own — or are thinking of buying — in a building like this: the owners corporation had to defend eight Supreme Court proceedings. That means eight sets of legal fees, eight rounds of preparing evidence, and eight court appearances.
Who pays? The owners corporation — which means all 237 lot owners through their strata levies. Even though the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs, cost orders against self-represented litigants are notoriously difficult to enforce. The building may never recover those costs.
The hidden cost: reputation
Beyond the legal fees, the building now has eight published Supreme Court decisions attached to its strata plan number. Any prospective buyer searching for SP 93392 will find them. Even though the cases reflect one owner's behaviour rather than a building defect, the optics are terrible. Eight court cases in a year makes a building look deeply dysfunctional — regardless of the reason.
Lessons for buyers
This case illustrates why checking a building's court history matters — but also why you need to read beyond the headline numbers:
1. Count matters, but context matters more
Eight cases sounds alarming. But when all eight are by the same plaintiff, all dismissed, and all about procedural failures rather than building defects — the picture changes. This building doesn't have a structural problem. It had a litigant problem that now appears resolved.
2. Check who filed
Cases filed by the owners corporation (usually against a developer or builder) are very different from cases filed by individual lot owners against the owners corporation. The former often reflects the building proactively protecting owners' interests. The latter may reflect internal dysfunction.
3. Ask about the current state
Is the litigant still an owner? Has the conflict resolved? Are there pending proceedings? Past litigation is a flag, not necessarily a dealbreaker — but you need to understand whether the underlying cause is still present.
Sources & citations
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 [2023] NSWSC 853
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 906
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 907
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 908
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 5) [2023] NSWSC 910
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 1368
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 7) [2023] NSWSC 1647
- Sethi v The Owners - Strata Plan No 93392 (No 8) [2024] NSWSC 213
Note: The plaintiff's name is part of the public record in published court decisions but has been retained in citations for accuracy. The focus of this article is on the pattern of litigation, not the individual.
Check a building before you buy
StrataChecks shows tribunal cases, financial health, and management details for any strata plan in NSW.
Search a strata plan →