Columns
10 years on Image

10 years on

Melbourne Water moving to Docklands
Read more >>

Away from the desk Image

Away from the desk

The little bent tree
Read more >>

Chamber update Image

Chamber update

COVID-19 and the Chamber’s response
Read more >>

Docklander Image

Docklander

Empowering women locally and abroad
Read more >>

Docklands Secrets Image

Docklands Secrets

Conflicting speeds
Read more >>

Chinese

零工经济的灰色区域
Read more >>

Fashion Image

Fashion

Top five street style trends
Read more >>

Health and Wellbeing Image

Health and Wellbeing

Five strategies to get through coronavirus (COVID-19)
Read more >>

Letters Image

Letters

Bring on the lasers
Read more >>

Business Image

Business

New offerings at The District Docklands Market Lane
Read more >>

Owners Corporation Law Image

Owners Corporation Law

Social distancing in apartment blocks is hard to do, but necessary right now
Read more >>

Maritime

Maritime matters
Read more >>

Pets Corner Image

Pets Corner

Adorable therapy
Read more >>

Precinct Perspectives

A new perspective from Batman’s Hill
Read more >>

SkyPad Living Image

SkyPad Living

A chair’s perspective of vertical living in COVID-19 times
Read more >>

Street Art Image

Street Art

Goodbye from Blender Studios
Read more >>

Sustainability

Sustainability in a pandemic world
Read more >>

The District

Eat your way through our most delicious hot spots
Read more >>

We Live Here Image

We Live Here

We need a clear cladding policy – now!
Read more >>

Abby's Angle  Image

Abby's Angle

Slow down. The panic is coursing through all our veins
Read more >>

Watergate claims dismissed

03 May 2018

By Lina Le

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on April 20 struck out a series of conflict of interest allegations against the Watergate owners’ corporation (OC) and associated individuals.

Lot owner Anton Sare made a number of claims against the OC, its chair Barbara Francis and its strata manager Kingston Management Group.

Mr Sare claimed conflicts of interest, alleging the parties had not disclosed their association with We Live Here Movement Ltd to lot owners, and signed a contract for the building’s security service with a company owned by an employee of the OC.

“It is not inconceivable that funds from this contract that have been directed into WLHM but I do not know that. Conflict of interest is one whether it is a matter of fact or a matter of perception,” Mr Sare said.

But Tribunal Member Mr Hugh Davies said: “The mere statement that people are in conflict because they belong to some other organisation, in this case, WLHM, cannot stand as we know there is nothing here that indicates what the activities of that movement are which would constitute conflict.”

Another claim alleged that the OC had acted dishonestly as it did not inform all lot owners that a ballot had been extended beyond its closure date.

But a lawyer representing the respondents, Anthony Wilkinson, said: “To make the allegation of dishonesty, my understanding of the law is that he must have pleaded actual facts of the dishonest statement. That was not spelled out [in the application].”

Mr Davies considered all arguments presented by the applicant and decided that there was no merit for a reinstatement claim. In his view, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

Mr Sare was advised to make a new application if he wanted to pursuit these matters in the future.

Share on Facebook

Stay in touch with Docklands. Subscribe to FREE monthly e-Newspaper.

You must be registered with Docklands News to be able to post comments.
To register, please click here.