📣 Petition to Set Aside the Decision in Strata Corporation 12753 Inc v Ren [2022] SADC 134 and Restore the Rule of Law at 21 Pulteney Street, Adelaide

We, the undersigned owners, former owners, residents, and concerned members of the public, call upon the District Court of South Australia and the Attorney-General to urgently review and set aside the judgment in Strata Corporation 12753 Inc v Ren [2022] SADC 134 (CIV-22-008709), on the grounds of unlawful commencement, lack of corporate authority, and breach of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA).

 
⚖️ Why This Case Demands Urgent Redress

The litigation against Unit 24 was commenced in 2022 without:

• Any general meeting, committee resolution, or special resolution authorising legal action;
• Any cost agreement or legal retainer approved by the Corporation;
• Any pre-action notice. The application was filed on 10 August 2022 and first served on Unit 24 on 12 August 2022, just four days before the first hearing on 16 August 2022. No pre-action notice or opportunity to respond was given, in breach of natural justice and the procedural expectations under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA)

 

The claim relied on:

• A legally erroneous theory was applied—that council-approved, internal, non-structural works amounted to “prescribed work” requiring a special resolution. However, under section 29(6) of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA), prescribed work involves structural or external changes, which were not present here;

• An assertion section 44 of the same Act, alleging that leasing individual bedrooms in a certified Class 3 building—lawfully constructed and continuously used as a rooming house since at least 1980—constituted a breach. This position disregards the fact that the building’s classification permits such use under the Building Code of Australia, and that shared rental occupancy had been long accepted by the Corporation and its members without objection..

 
🧩 What Actually Happened

• Botten Levinson Lawyers were introduced at a committee meeting on 30 May 2022;

• However, a retainer agreement was unilaterally signed six weeks earlier (14 April 2022) by Ms Lynne Veness, the committee secretary—not the presiding officer;

• No resolution was ever passed authorising legal action, incurring legal costs, or instructing solicitors;

•  Ms Veness held no delegated authority to enter into any legal agreement or incur legal costs on behalf of the Corporation, as required by sections 24, 26, and 27A(3) of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA). No resolution was passed authorising such delegation, and no lawful authority existed enabling her to bind the Corporation in contract;

• Former committee members Jason Parker (Unit 11) and Shaun Dicmanis (Unit 9) confirmed no retainer, cost agreement, or litigation was ever discussed or authorised at any meeting;

• The District Court proceedings were filed without notice, without process, and without lawful authority.

 
📌 Timeline of Events and Conduct

Litigation Initiated Against Unit 24 (August 2022):
The Strata Corporation commenced proceedings against Ms Si Ren in the District Court (CIV-22-008709) on 10 August 2022 without authorisation by general meeting or committee resolution.
The action was served on 12 August 2022, only four days before the first hearing on 16 August 2022, and without pre-action notice or opportunity to respond .

Court Orders Made (8 December 2022):
On 8 December 2022, the Court issued orders requiring Ms Ren to restore Unit 24 and pay substantial legal costs .

Offer to Purchase Unit 24 Immediately After Orders (19 December 2022):
Just 11 days after the Court order, Botten Levinson (on behalf of the Strata Corporation) sent a formal commercial offer to purchase Unit 24 in its current condition—expressly stating the Corporation would waive compliance with the Court’s restoration order if Ms Ren agreed to sell .

Pattern Extends to Other Owners —

Unit 9 (Shaun Dicmanis, 2023–2024):
After refusing to sell to Ms Veness following informal offers, Mr Dicmanis received breach notices and legal threats. Notably, Ms Veness made offers to purchase his unit in the subdivided condition, but only after the refusal did legal action and breach notices follow .

Unit 11 (Jason & Lisa Parker, 2024):
Jason and Lisa Parker were similarly served breach notices after rejecting an offer to sell their unit in its modified form. The Corporation initially offered to accept their internal layout, but retracted the offer once they declined to sell.

⚖️ Summary of Legal Concerns

Improper Use of Judicial Orders: The offer to purchase Unit 24 in its “current condition” in exchange for waiving court-ordered compliance indicates a misuse of judicial authority as a bargaining chip for acquisition.

Targeted Enforcement: Legal threats and breach notices were selectively used only after owners declined to sell—suggesting coercive motives rather than consistent by-law enforcement.

Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Position: Ms Veness, acting as Secretary without lawful delegation under sections 24, 26, or 27A of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA), appears to have engaged legal services and directed enforcement for personal benefit.

This sequence shows the litigation was not purely about compliance but appears to have been used to facilitate unit acquisition, thereby weaponising legal authority for private gain.

 
⚠️ Systemic Failures and Precedent Risk

Judge Durrant’s ruling:

·       Permitted a single committee member to unilaterally bind the Corporation to litigation and over $250,000 in legal expenses;

·       Overrode requirements of transparency, owner consent, and financial accountability under the Act;

·       Undermined long-standing, lawful occupancy practices in a Class 3 rooming house;
Enabled coercive and retaliatory governance through misuse of legal mechanisms.

·       The internal alterations carried out at Unit 24, 11, 9—consisting of non-structural partitioning—did not involve the erection, demolition, removal, or alteration of any structural element of the building, nor did they affect its external appearance. Accordingly, the works do not fall within the statutory definition of "prescribed work" under section 29(6) of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA). The requirement for development approval arose solely due to the building's heritage status under the Development Act 1993 (SA), not because of any structural, prescribed, or regulated building activity. The assertion that such heritage-listed, non-structural internal works triggered a special resolution requirement was legally unfounded and represents a misapplication of both planning law and the Strata Titles Act. The court’s adoption of this position disregarded the actual scope of the works and improperly extended statutory interpretation beyond its lawful limits.

 
🛑 We Demand:

1. That the District Court of South Australia re-open or set aside the proceedings in Strata Corporation 12753 Inc v Ren [2022] SADC 134 (CIV-22-008709) on the grounds that they were commenced without any valid authorisation by the Corporation, in breach of sections 24, 26 and 27A of the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA), and contrary to principles of procedural fairness enshrined in the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA);

2. That the Attorney-General of South Australia conduct an inquiry into the judicial conduct and administrative failures that permitted litigation to proceed based on ultra vires action, statutory breach, lack of owner resolution, and without any pre-action notice or opportunity for defence;

3. That all legal costs paid from Corporation funds in connection with these unauthorised proceedings—exceeding $250,000—be refunded in full to the administrative fund of Strata Corporation 12753 Inc, as no resolution or lawful delegation ever approved the engagement of legal counsel or the initiation of proceedings;

4. That the lawful and long-standing use of the building as a Class 3 boarding/rooming house, including shared accommodation and internal layouts consistent with that classification, be formally recognised and protected from arbitrary enforcement or retroactive penalty;

5. That legislative amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA) be introduced to:
  • Prohibit any individual officer—including a secretary—from unilaterally retaining lawyers or initiating litigation on behalf of the Corporation;
  • Mandate general meeting approval for all legal retainers or commencement of proceedings;
  • Establish mandatory cost oversight and financial reporting to owners for any litigation-related expenditure;

6. That the statutory right of lot owners to undertake non-structural, internal improvements within their unit—such as reconfiguring partition walls or repurposing rooms—be clearly affirmed under the Act, and protected where such work does not constitute “prescribed work” under section 29(6). The mischaracterisation of such works as requiring a special resolution—when they are non-structural and triggered council oversight only due to heritage classification—represents a serious overreach and infringement upon property rights.

 

📌 Petition as Supporting Evidence

This petition is not merely symbolic. It forms part of a live judicial process. On 30 June 2025, the District Court of South Australia granted leave for the respondent (Ms Si Ren) to file an application to set aside the judgment in Strata Corporation 12753 Inc v Ren [2022] SADC 134 on the basis that the proceedings were not properly authorised by the Corporation. This application is due by 7 August 2025. The issues raised in this petition—including lack of delegation, unauthorised engagement of legal counsel, procedural unfairness, and misuse of the litigation process—will be submitted in support of that application. The undersigned petitioners include current and former owners, residents, and members of the public who are directly impacted by the unlawful processes exposed in the litigation. Their signatures represent not only public interest and stakeholder concern, but also material evidence of prejudice and systemic failure warranting urgent judicial correction.

✊ Why Your Signature Matters

This case is not an anomaly—it is a manifestation of systemic breakdown within strata governance. It highlights:

• The failure to adhere to statutory safeguards under the Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA) and Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA);
• The exposure of owners to unapproved legal action and financial depletion without consent or consultation;
• The misuse of committee power for private interests, in breach of fiduciary and procedural obligations;
• The erosion of democratic accountability, natural justice, and owner rights.

If you believe in the rule of law, in transparent governance, and in protecting owners from retaliatory litigation and financial abuse—your voice is essential. This is not merely about one dispute. It is about whether owners retain meaningful control over their properties and whether legal process can be used as a weapon, unchecked.

We call for only what is legally and ethically required: authority, consultation, accountability, and respect for due process.

Let this decision not stand as precedent. Let it be scrutinised and corrected. Your signature is a stand for justice, and a call to restore lawful governance.