Decisions table

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in revoking approval to make improvements to common property on the roof. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 86, 97, 98, 116, 128, 180

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REGULATION MODULE – where the community management statement states that the Accommodation Module applies to this scheme – whether the circumstances that must exist for the Accommodation Module to apply to this scheme actually exist – whether a new community management statement should be recorded stating that the Standard Module applies. Act, s 21(3); Accommodation Module s 3, Standard Module s 3.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING – whether circumstances exist to warrant shortening the notice period given to owners for a general meeting. Act, ss 227(2), 243A, 276; Accommodation Module, s 81

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMMITTEE SPENDING – where purported spending by the committee exceeded the relevant limit for major spending- circumstances where spending beyond relevant limit for committee spending can be subsequently ratified by a general meeting Accommodation Module ss 125, 127, 163.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS – of committee refusal under by-law of owner’s motion proposing change of use for lot Act, ss 94, 100(5)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT/COMMON PROPERTY; PROPERTY DAMAGE. Act, ss 184, 281; Standard Module, ss 187, 211, 212, 213

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the damage to paint and plasterboard on the ceiling of a lot was caused by the body corporate’s failure to maintain common property. Act, ss 297, 298; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 87639 owners corp
• Karimbla Properties (No4) Pty Ltd developer
• Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd builder
• Karimbla Construction Services (NSW) Pty Ltd builder

The court granted the Owners Corporation leave to amend its Technology and Construction List Statement to reflect significantly expanded evidence of systemic building defects, with amendments taking effect only from the date of the application to amend on 11 November 2024.

Building and Property

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Whether leave required LAND LAW — Easements — Substantial interference with easements — dominant owner proposes extended width of driveway on their own land — proposal that drivers from servient tenement will cross onto dominant owner’s land — alleged that the development application contains certain deficiencies— servient owner’s consent required for making of development application pursuant to s 23(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NS

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether the dispute is within jurisdiction of department adjudicator – whether the committee acted unreasonably in resolving to withhold the caretaker’s remuneration for alleged non-performance of duties. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 229(2); Accommodation Module, s 142

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 76907 owners corp
• Sydney Metro government

Leave was granted to the Applicant to adduce expert evidence on conditions that the Respondent's costs thrown away be paid on an indemnity basis, with no further extensions of time permitted except in exceptional circumstances.

COMMITTEE MOTION – PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicants’ car was damaged by an intruder – where a security roller door was not working at the time – where the committee refused to pay the applicants’ expenses – whether the body corporate was liable for the property damage – whether a committee decision should be overturned. Act, ss 94, 100, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

Building and Property

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – An electrical cable on common property is damaged, cutting power to the applicant’s lot. The applicant says the cable is common property and the body corporate must repair it. The body corporate disagrees because the cable connects to a switchboard within the applicant’s lot, which it says is a device that only provides a utility service to the lot. The applicant seeks orders to compel the body corporate to repair the cable. Act, ss 20, 94(1)(a), 177(1); Standard Module, ss 180(1) & (4)(a), 192(2), 211(5); Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14D(b).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – where the original owner signed a reallocation agreement swapping the exclusive use car spaces of two lots that it owned at the time – where the original owner notified the body corporate of the reallocation – where the body corporate failed to record a new community management statement to give effect to the reallocation – where both lots were subsequently sold – whether the time for the body corporate to record a new statement should be extended. Act, ss 62(4), 63, 171(1), 174(1), 176

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 owners corp
• Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd builder
• Aqualand North Sydney Lavender Development Pty Ltd developer

The Owners Corporation's application for a freezing order against the Developer was granted to prevent disposal of assets up to $10.6 million, as the court found there was a danger that a judgment would be unsatisfied given the Developer's pattern of distributing proceeds from unit sales and likelihood of selling the four remaining residential units.

MAINTENANCE – where termites entered a structure on a lot in a standard format plan directly from common property, whether the body corporate breached its statutory duty to maintain; PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether body corporate’s breach of a statutory duty to maintain caused damage to property – where there are multiple causes of property damage, whether apportionment of the costs of repairs is appropriate. Act, ss 94, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

NUISANCE – ORDERS The applicant body corporate complains that the respondent lot owner has for some years caused nuisance by persistently sending communications to the committee and other lot owners about disputed issues. The body corporate seeks orders limiting the respondent’s communications with other owners and absolving the committee from an obligation to respond to certain types of his communications. The questions are: whether such conduct can be characterised as unlawful nuisance; and if so, whether the requested orders are in appropriate form to be made. COSTS The applicant seeks an order for reimbursement by the respondent of its application costs because the preceding conciliation session was ended on the basis that the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate in conciliation. The question is whether a costs order is warranted in the circumstances. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997: ss 167, 280 Proximity One [[2016] QBCCMCmr 416](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2016/416.html "View Case") Drift Palm Cove [[2021] QBCCMCmr 149](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2021/149.html "View Case")

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – The respondent is accused of parking a caravan on common property and keeping dogs at the scheme without body corporate consent in contravention of the by-laws. The applicant seeks the removal of the caravan and dogs. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 184(2), 287, 288(1); Accommodation Module, s 58B.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges another resident is making noise in breach of the by-laws – where the body corporate did not issue a by-law contravention notice to the other resident – whether the body corporate must take by-law enforcement action against the resident. Act, ss 94, 182-186; Small Schemes Module, s 22

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION; DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – The former owner of the applicant’s lot erected a fence and shed on common property without proper authority. A general meeting resolution required that all structures be removed from the common property unless rent is paid. The applicant argues the body corporate acted unreasonably and asks that the motion be declared invalid. Act, ss 35(1), 36(1), 62(2), 94, 100(5), 105, 106; Standard Module, ss 98(1)(a)(ii), 184(2).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether the respondent must remove items from common property which are alleged to breach the scheme’s by-laws until a final determination is made. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, s 177.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS; COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether the committee acted unreasonably when refusing to grant approval for the respondent’s dog to reside at the scheme, where residents have medical conditions; ASSISTANCE DOG – definition; right to keep on lot or common property. Act, ss 100(5); 169B, 181; Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

PROPERTY DAMAGE; MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is responsible for termite damage sustained to the applicant’s lot in 2014 and must reimburse her costs of repairs. Act, ss 36(1), 94(1)(a), 94(2), 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201(3); Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EXPENDITURE; REASONABLENESS – The body corporate resolved to increase the relevant limits for committee and major spending in relation to works to remove combustible materials from the common property. The committee then engaged contractors after considering only a single quotation. Part of the work resulted in a reduction of natural light in some lots. The questions to resolve are whether the body corporate acted unreasonably, breached the code of conduct for committee members, or should have considered more than one quotation. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate committee resolved to commence legal proceedings - whether interim order is warranted. Act, s279(1)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION – where lot owners made application to Sunshine Coast Regional Council to approve Material Change of Use to redevelop their lots. RESTRICTED ISSUE FOR COMMITTEE - whether body corporate committee is able to consent to lodgement of development application for material change of use. GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – validity of resolution permitting lot owners to carry out works in accordance with development approval – whether works will involve a disposition of common property

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

RETURN OF BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the former body corporate manager fulfilled its obligation to hand over body corporate property Commercial Module, ss 171 & 181

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where owner’s air-conditioner installed on common property was not properly authorised – whether air-conditioner should be removed. Act, s94; Standard Module, s187

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where owner sought retrospective approval for an air-conditioner installed on common property subject to conditions including relocation of the condenser – whether the motion at general meeting was incorrectly ruled out of order – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably – whether the motion should be deemed carried. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, ss 98, 187

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate committee resolved to commence legal proceedings - whether interim order is warranted. Act, s279(1)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate committee resolved to commence legal proceedings - whether interim order is warranted. Act, s279(1)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges the owner of Lot 28 is breaching the scheme’s by-laws – whether an order that the body corporate enforce the by-laws is warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 100, 182, 183, 185, 280; Standard Module, s 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the applicant’s timber flooring was damaged because the body corporate failed to maintain an external wall in good condition; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s expenditure on new flooring. Act, s 281; Standard Module, s 180(1).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

Owners Corporations

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

Building and Property

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether the respondent must remove items from common property which are alleged to breach the scheme’s by-laws until a final determination is made. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, ss 177, 183.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 100526 owners corp
• Rolla Hamdan lot owner
• Charlie Hamdan lot owner

The application for costs of the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting an award of costs under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether the person chairing the general meeting correctly ruled the applicant’s motion out of order GENERAL MEETING – whether the annual general meeting is void for procedural irregularities Accommodation Module, ss 88, 95, 96, 103 and 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• Alim Lim and Jonathan Lim lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 51159 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction was confirmed but the appeal was not remitted as the screen door was correctly removed to comply with fire safety regulations and any reinstatement would require the lot owner to seek approval through the proper statutory process.

GENERAL MEETING – whether technical deficiencies in the general meeting notice had a material or substantial impact that justifies voiding the general meeting and all purported resolutions of the general meeting. Act, s94, 108; Standard Module, ss 87, 88, 91.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate’s decision to reject an application to keep pets was unreasonable. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT; BY-LAWS – whether changes to the appearance of a lot breached a by-law or general meeting resolution; whether the changes should be reversed.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

VALIDITY OF CARETAKING SERVICE CONTRACT- whether option to renew was properly exercised VALIDITY OF GARDENING CONTRACT – where body corporate purported to enter into contract for maintenance of lots DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION- where adjudicator is satisfied the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 149B, 227, 229, 270(1)(b) Accommodation Module s200

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

Scheme dispute - Maintenance of common property

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – whether two cameras installed within a lot and capturing common property should be removed because they contravene by-laws regulating nuisance and changes to the external appearance of the lot. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 184, 270(1)(c),(3)&(4), 276(1).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

JURISDICTION – where the application has no named respondent – whether the application falls within section 227(2) of the Act. Act, ss 227, 243A, 276

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.