Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd t/as Huanan Trading v The Owners Strata Plan No. 32369

1. [1]

   THE COURT: The first applicant seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of Walton J in Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd t/as Huanan Trading v The Owners Strata Plan No. 32396 [2025] NSWSC 1065 (primary judgment or PJ). The primary judge dismissed the first applicant’s summons filed 20 February 2025 in which it appealed from the decision of an NCAT Appeal Panel in Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 32396 [2024] NSWCATAP 192.

2. [2]

   Mr Jack Mei is the director of the first applicant and he represented the company both below and on the present application. We have taken into account the first applicant’s written submissions dated 13 October 2025 and 31 March 2026.

3. [3]

   The summons seeking leave to appeal names for the first time Mr Mei as the second applicant and the first respondent’s insurer as the second respondent. No proper application for joinder of these parties has been made and, in any event, no basis has been shown for joining either of those parties. They should not have been named in the summons.

Background matters summarised

1. [4]

   The first applicant owned a unit in Strata Plan No. 32396. Following heavy rain between 7 and 10 February 2020, water flooded the unit which damaged stock stored in the unit. The first applicant sought to claim damages from the Owners of Strata Plan No. 32396 under s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (“SSM Act”), on the basis that it was the first respondent’s failure to maintain and repair common property, namely, a downpipe, which caused the stock to be damaged by the rainfall. It appears that the first applicant became aware of the damage on or around 10 February 2020.

2. [5]

   On or around 2 February 2022, the first applicant electronically lodged an application with NCAT seeking damages pursuant to s 106(5) of the SSM Act (“the February 2022 strata application”).

3. [6]

   On 3 February 2022, a staff member of the NCAT Registry advised Mr Mei as follows:

4. [7]

   Mr Mei was also told by the NCAT staff member that if he needed advice he could contact NSW Fair Trading. Mr Mei acted upon that advice. By an email to the same NCAT Registry staff member on 3 February 2022, Mr Mei said that he had lodged an online complaint with Fair Trading but had not yet been given a complaint number. He added that he expected to be contacted by Fair Trading within 14 days.

5. [8]

   Notably, on 4 February 2022 and notwithstanding that Mr Mei had previously been told that he had until 7 February 2022 to provide evidence of attempted mediation, he received an email from a Deputy Divisional Registrar of NCAT which stated that the Registry had not received any information “of attempted mediation”. Mr Mei was told that the February 2022 strata application had not been accepted and that the file was closed.

6. [9]

   On 6 February 2022, Mr Mei provided by email to the NCAT staff member the Fair Trading reference number associated with the online complaint (being 10846793).

7. [10]

   Also, on 6 February 2022, Mr Mei emailed the Deputy Divisional Registrar, saying that he had contacted Fair Trading and had told NCAT of that fact. He said that he had been following NCAT’s instructions “to attempt the mediation” and asked that the file not be closed.

8. [11]

   On 11 February 2022 (being the day after Mr Mei had made a further inquiry with NCAT regarding the status of the February 2022 strata application), he was again told by NCAT that the file relating to that application had been closed and could not be re-opened. He was told that if he wished to lodge a new application he should attach a letter from Fair Trading indicating the outcome of the mediation.

9. [12]

   NCAT did not provide Mr Mei with any explanation for its finding that the first applicant had failed to provide evidence of attempted mediation. Thus, it is unclear whether NCAT considered the online complaint to Fair Trading to not itself be a request for mediation or whether, if it did, there was nevertheless no “attempted mediation” unless the mediation had proceeded and failed.

10. [13]

    On 17 February 2022, Mr Mei received an email from the Real Estate and Property List section of Fair Trading which acknowledged receipt of the complaint made on 3 February 2022 (with the Reference Number: 10846793), and explained Fair Trading’s role. That role was “to provide information about strata legislation, regulate the conduct of strata managing agents and offer a mediation service to assist in resolving disputes”. Mr Mei was told that if the matter remained unresolved, he could seek mediation, which was provided through Fair Trading’s Mediation Services Unit. He was provided a link to the Fair Trading website if he needed more information about mediation.

11. [14]

    On 20 February 2022, the Strata Mediation, Strata and Community Living, Specialist Service section of Fair Trading sent Mr Mei another email headed “Application for Mediation. SP 32396. File No: 00664964” (this is a different Reference Number to that previously provided by Fair Trading in relation to the online complaint). The text of the email is as follows:

12. [15]

    The evidence does not disclose whether, in fact, the first applicant made an application for mediation which was separate from his online complaint to Fair Trading. The Court asked the first applicant to provide a copy of any such application for mediation, but none was provided.

13. [16]

    On 3 March 2022, the Strata and Community Living section of Fair Trading sent Mr Mei another email headed “Application for Mediation SP 32396 Case – 00664964”. The email noted that the first applicant was entitled to inspect the records of the owners corporation. Mr Mei was provided with a link to the Fair Trading website if he needed additional information. The email included two attachments regarding the “above mentioned application for mediation”.

14. [17]

    On 22 March 2022, the Strata and Community Living section of Fair Trading sent another email to Mr Mei. The email was headed “Application for Mediation SP 32396 Case – 00664964”. The body of the email contained an additional heading: “CONFIRMED MEDIATION. SP 32396. File No: 00664964”. The email referred to the application for mediation concerning issues relating to the management of the strata scheme, including “issues relating to strata insurance; the request for compensation for water damage to unit 17; communication and access to records”. Mr Mei was told that there would be a telephone mediation held on 22 April 2022.

15. [18]

    On 22 April 2022, by an email sent to Mr Mei from the Mediation Services, Strata and Community Living section of Fair Trading, it was confirmed that the mediation had not reached a final settlement. Mr Mei was told that if he wished to proceed with an application to NCAT he would need to indicate on the application form that he had attempted mediation and that Fair Trading’s letter dated 22 April 2022 would suffice for that purpose.

16. [19]

    On 28 April 2022, the first applicant lodged an application for review with NCAT seeking compensation for the damaged goods in the same amount of $64,726.90. The application referred to the February 2022 strata application and stated that NCAT had requested that a new application be lodged after the mediation.

17. [20]

    By an email dated 4 May 2022, NCAT acknowledged receipt of the April 2022 strata application and asked for the application fee to be paid. The fee was paid on 6 May 2022.

The NCAT proceedings

1. [21]

   On 11 November 2022, NCAT, constituted by D Goldstein (Senior Member), dismissed the April 2022 strata application on the basis that the claim for damages had been brought out of time (see Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 32396 [2022] NSWCATCD 213). NCAT found that the application had to be brought within two years of February 2020, being the time when the first applicant first became aware of the loss (s 106(6) of the SSM Act). The Tribunal also held that s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (“CAT Act”) did not apply to extend the period referred to in s 106(6) of the SSM Act (“the 2022 Tribunal Decision”).

2. [22]

   On 6 March 2023, a differently constituted Appeal Panel of NCAT upheld the first applicant’s appeal from the 2022 Tribunal Decision (see Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 32396 [2023] NSWCATAP 66). It held that the Tribunal did have the power to extend the time under s 106(6) of the SSM Act and remitted the proceedings back to the Tribunal to determine whether the first applicant should be granted an extension of time (“the 2023 Appeal Panel Decision”).

3. [23]

   Senior Member Goldstein determined the remitted proceedings on 17 November 2023 (see Ha Nan Trading Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 32396 (Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW), D Goldstein Senior Member, 17 November 2023, unrep)) (“the 2023 Tribunal Decision”). Senior Member Goldstein dismissed the first applicant’s application for an extension of time, finding that the explanation for delay was not satisfactory. He also found that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that its case was more than “fairly arguable”. The Senior Member emphasised that the first applicant had legal representation when the February 2022 strata application was lodged on or around 2 February 2022.

4. [24]

   The Senior Member explained at some length why he considered, based on the evidence before NCAT, that the first applicant had failed to establish that its loss was caused by a defect in the downpipe forming part of the common property. It is well to set out [42]-[43] from the 2023 Tribunal Decision:

5. [25]

   The first applicant then appealed the 2023 Tribunal Decision. The appeal was heard by a differently constituted Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel published its reasons for decision on 3 October 2024 (see Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan No 32396 [2024] NSWCATAP 192) (“the 2024 Appeal Panel Decision”). The Appeal Panel determined the following two issues raised by the first applicant:

6. [26]

   The Appeal Panel answered both questions in the negative and refused leave under s 80(2)(b) of the CAT Act. The Appeal Panel considered the merits of the April 2022 strata application, in considering whether or not to extend time. The Appeal Panel agreed with Senior Member Goldstein’s analysis that the claim was weak.

The primary judgment summarised

1. [27]

   The first applicant then appealed the 2024 Appeal Panel Decision to the Supreme Court under s 83 of the CAT Act.

2. [28]

   Section 83 provides that:

3. [29]

   An appeal under s 83(1) of the CAT Act is not an appeal as of right. The appeal requires leave of the Court. Importantly, the appeal is also confined to a question of law.

4. [30]

   The sole ground of appeal advanced by the first applicant before the Supreme Court was that the Appeal Panel erred by finding that the April 2022 strata application was filed out of time. It is notable that there was no separate challenge regarding whether or not time should have been extended.

5. [31]

   The Supreme Court proceedings raised two key issues:

   1. (1)

      The first was whether there was a valid appeal from the Appeal Panel pursuant to s 83 of the CAT Act. This question required consideration of whether the Appeal Panel’s determination that the April 2022 strata application was lodged out of time was a question of fact or question of law, given that appeals under s 83 of the CAT Act are confined to the latter.

   2. (2)

      Second, whether the Court should refuse leave to appeal.

6. [32]

   Walton J said at PJ [32] that the only issue on appeal was whether the Appeal Panel erred by finding that the April 2022 strata application was filed out of time. His Honour emphasised that the first applicant was not raising any issue as to whether there should be an extension of time to bring the April 2022 strata application. This was because the first applicant’s “strident position” was that the earlier strata application dated 2 February 2022 was relevant and formed part of a continuing process which linked the February and April strata applications.

7. [33]

   Walton J held that as the only issue agitated by the first applicant related to a question of fact alone (or a mixed question of fact and law) and not a question of law the appeal should be dismissed.

8. [34]

   In obiter, Walton J added that he would have refused leave to bring the appeal because:

Should this Court grant the first applicant leave to appeal?

1. [35]

   It is common ground that the first applicant requires leave to appeal because of the sum of money involved. It is well-settled that, in general, for there to be a grant of leave to appeal an applicant must establish that the proposed appeal involves an issue of principle, question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice going beyond something that is merely arguable.

2. [36]

   For the following reasons, leave to appeal will be refused.

3. [37]

   The first applicant has not demonstrated any issue of principle, question of public importance, or reasonably clear injustice arising from an error which is more than merely arguable. His essential complaint relates to his claim that the February 2022 strata application and April 2022 strata application are connected in such a way that the primary judge erred in not finding that the NCAT proceedings were validly commenced on 2 February 2022 and before the expiration of the two-year limitation period. This claim was rejected not only by the primary judge but also by NCAT and the Appeal Panel. The claim was doomed to fail in circumstances where, as noted above, the February 2022 strata application was never accepted by NCAT and the related file was closed. The April 2022 strata application was a separate proceeding, as is reflected in the fact that it was given a separate file number by NCAT.

4. [38]

   Secondly, the finding in the 2024 Appeal Panel Decision that the April 2022 strata application was filed out of time was a finding of fact or possibly a mixed finding of fact and law. The proceeding before Walton J was confined to a question of law. Accordingly, there was no prospect of the first applicant obtaining leave to appeal in respect of a matter which did not involve a question of law.

5. [39]

   Thirdly, although it may be accepted that the monetary amount in dispute may be of considerable significance to the first applicant and Mr Mei, it is relatively modest. As the first respondent points out, the proceedings have already occupied a disproportionate amount of time and resources in both NCAT and this Court. It is unsurprising that the first respondent claims that it has incurred legal costs in excess of the claimed amount. These matters weigh heavily against there being a grant of leave to appeal, not the least in circumstances where the first applicant’s substantive case is so weak for the reasons given in the 2023 Tribunal Decision.

6. [40]

   For all these reasons, leave to appeal will be refused, with costs. As we have said, there was no basis shown for joining either the second applicant or the second respondent as parties to the proceedings.

7. [41]

   For completeness, we note that, on 1 July 2025, s 106(6) of the SSM Act was amended to increase the limitation period from two to six years. Thus, the first applicant could have lodged a third application with NCAT before 10 February 2026, together with proof of attempted mediation. Of course, it is not the Court’s function to provide legal advice to any party but the first applicant may well rue the fact that it did not seek and obtain timely legal advice after mid-2025.