Decisions table

DELEGATION OF POWER – whether body corporate delegated its powers when it decided to authorise its chairperson to expend body corporate funds on repairs and maintenance without requiring a committee resolution. Act, ss 94(2), 97; Accommodation Module, ss 162-164

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether the committee resolved to submit motions to a general meeting – whether the committee motions at the general meeting should be invalidated. Standard Module, ss 54-73, 82, 86, 173

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

BY-LAWS – The body corporate says the respondent breached the by-laws by placing pot plants on common property outside his lot and changing a common property lock at the front door to the scheme building. It seeks the removal of the plants and reimbursement of its expenditure on a locksmith, a conciliation application, and disbursements to the body corporate manager. The questions to resolve are whether pot plants on common property constitute an obstruction, whether changing a lock amounts to damaging common property, and if the answer is yes, whether the body corporate is entitled to reimbursement of its expenses. Act, ss 35(1)&(4), 276(1), 280(1), 281(1)(b).

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

COMMON PROPERTY – OBSTRUCTION – UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE The respondent, a lot owner in a commercial and retail scheme, uses the common property parking area to occasionally stand a shipping container, to receive goods for its business. The applicant, another lot owner, says the containers and the large trucks which deliver and retrieve the containers damage the carpark surface and surrounds, create a hazard, and interfere with the use of common property by others, in particular by taking up a number of car parking spaces. The applicant seeks an order that the respondent stop bringing the containers into common property area. The main questions for determination are whether the shipping containers obstruct or unreasonably interfere with use of the common property by others, and whether there is sufficient evidence of the alleged damage and hazard. Act, s 167(1)

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant says his lot was damaged by water ingress – where the applicant says the water ingress arose from the body corporate’s failure to maintain common property – where the applicant claims reimbursement of repairs he undertook to the lot, loss of rent and interest – whether the dispute should be determined in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 250, 270, 276, 281

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to pass motions that would reimburse the applicant for replacing damaged carpets and lost rent following sewage water inundation. JURISDICTION – whether adjudicator has exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance – whether the application seeking reimbursement for lost rental income should be dismissed so it may be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. Act, s20, 94(2), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss 170.

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether levies were raised and increased in accordance with the legislation – whether required documentation about spending was provided to owners – whether reimbursements to a committee member were valid – whether committee expenditure was valid – COMMITTEE ELECTION – whether a committee election was valid – BODY CORPORATE MANAGER – whether an engagement should be terminated – LETTING AGENT – whether an authorisation should be terminated – GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions were valid – COSTS – whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded against the applicant. Act, ss 150, 227, 242, 270, 276; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 45, 142, 150, 162

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

• Yu Liu lot owner
• Li Wang lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 53093 owners corp

The summons seeking leave to appeal from the District Court was dismissed as incompetent because there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a District Court decision that was itself an appeal from the Local Court.

COMMERCIAL LEASE – lease of common property of commercial leasehold strata scheme – construction of definition of “Market Value of the Stratum” – no issue of principle

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

BY-LAWS – The affected parties run a café from the applicant’s lot and position tables and chairs for their customers on adjacent common property. The body corporate considers that to be an obstruction of the common property in breach of a by-law and asks that they cease using the common property in this way or lease it from the body corporate. The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate ceases its demands or removes its own chairs and tables from common property. The question to resolve is whether the affected parties or the body corporate are obstructing the lawful use of common property in contravention of the by-laws. Act, ss 35(1)&(4), 94(2); Accommodation Module, s 174.

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – The applicant wants a key to a window restriction device on common property. He claims the body corporate committee’s refusal is contrary to a by-law and that the body corporate otherwise lacks the power to withhold the key. He also seeks repairs to prevent ongoing water ingress to his exclusive use parking space, and reimbursement of his expenditure on car cleaning. Act, ss 94(1)(a), 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 182(1).

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 16624 owners corp
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 90950 owners corp
• IPM Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) developer
• Aleksander Novakovic party
• IDA Potts Point Pty Ltd (in liquidation) party
• Steven Sroba party
• John Cardamis party

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide security for the second, fourth, and fifth defendants' costs in the sum of $300,000 each, payable in three tranches of $100,000, and to pay the defendants' costs of their motions.

Survey-strata scheme - Unauthorised structural works including on common property - Limestone retaining walls - Driveway - Application for retrospective development approval - Scheme dispute - Whether strata company to give owner's consent under cl 62(1)(b) of the deemed provisions in local planning schemes in Sch 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) - Proposed exclusive use by-law - Tribunal proceeding - Consideration of factors to exercise statutory discretion to make orders to resolve dispute or proceeding under strata law - Whether Tribunal should order a resolution without dissent was passed

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the respondents have breached the by-laws by bringing animals onto the scheme without approval. Act, ss 94, 100, 169, 180, 182-184

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

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – UCPR 1.21 – Reconsideration of the Court’s conclusion that an order for determination of a separate question be revoked - Application for removal of proceedings on the separate question to the Court of Appeal – Where Court is of the view that the separate question is inappropriate – Application refused

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

RECORDS – whether the body corporate must allow the applicant to inspect the roll; whether the body corporate can redact information from the roll including proprietors’ address details; whether the body corporate must include proprietors’ email addresses on the roll BUGT Act, ss 39, 40

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

INTERIM ORDER – Application for interim order–whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [[2017] QSC 001](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b2017%5d%20QSC%20001 "View LawCiteRecord") Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [[2006] HCA 46](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/46.html "View Case") Act s 279, Accommodation Module ss 125, 127, 163.

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is responsible for maintaining a tree on an exclusive use area of common property – whether the by-laws should be amended. Standard Module, ss 180, 192, 210, 211, 212

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

REASONABLENESS – where the committee voted to move the scheme’s pool equipment to an area nearer to the applicant’s lot – where the applicant disagrees with the committee’s decision to move the pool equipment to this area and wants the committee’s decision overturned – whether the committee acted unreasonably in making the decision to relocate the pool equipment. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 172

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

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Design Act ss 36 and 37 - Certifiers Act ss 13 and 14 – Proceedings by Owners Corporation against the third defendant accredited certifier for breach of the duty of care imposed by s 37 of the Design Act on the footing that the third defendant carried out construction work in or related to a residential strata apartment complex – Third defendant denies that it carried out construction work and denies that the Design Act can apply by virtue of the existence of a Practi

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicant seeks an interim order to postpone levy contribution – whether the final orders sought have sufficient likelihood of success – whether there are urgent circumstances that warrant interim orders being made. Act, ss 152, 279; Small Schemes Module, ss 81, 99.

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

APPEAL – Error as to date not impacting decision – no basis for grating leave to appeal LAND LAW – Strata title – two-year limitation period – date from which that period commences – extension of time not permitted

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

COURTS AND JUDGES – Supreme Court – Jurisdiction – Whether Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to make declaration that condition of by-law unjust – Where statute conferred function of finding condition unjust on NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal LAND LAW – Strata title – By-laws – Whether condition of by-law that exclusive use rights cease unless obligations complied with unjust – Whether condition harsh, oppressive or unconscionable – Whether respondents liable in damages under by-law for fa

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 breaching the by-laws about parking – where the body corporate decided not to issue a by-law contravention notice - whether the body corporate must take by-law enforcement action against the resident. Act, ss 94, 100, 182-186

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

MAINTENANCE – A planter box on the applicant’s balcony is leaking through a wall into a bedroom. She asks that the body corporate replaces the waterproof membrane in the planter box and repairs the water damage to her lot. Standard Module, ss 180, 211(3).

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

B-LAWS – CONCILIATION AGREEMENT – ORDERS The applicant lot owner alleges the Body Corporate has failed to enforce a by-law which requires lot owners to maintain the exteriors of their lots in clean and presentable condition. The applicant also alleges the Body Corporate has failed to comply with a term of a prior conciliation agreement about the issue. The applicant seeks orders that the Body Corporate comply with its obligation to enforce the by-law and with the conciliation agreement. The questions are whether an order can be made generally to comply with the law or to comply with a conciliation agreement. Act, s 94(1)(b)

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 89074 owners corp
• Ceerose Pty Ltd builder
• Prisand Investments Australia Pty Ltd developer

The Court adopted the referee's reports on liability and quantum with minor corrections, entering judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,952,984 for breach of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW).

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether the body corporate should be authorised to hold an extraordinary general meeting without 21 days’ notice Act, ss243A, 312; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 81

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

INTERIM – 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.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where common property courtyards adjoining lots on a building format plan – where applicants made modifications to dividing fence between courtyards without body corporate permission and cost of removal was sought from applicants LEVIES – whether interest applicable- whether there are special circumstances justifying waiver of interest Act, ss 94; 101B,163, 229A Small Schemes Module ss 16, 112, Schedule 1

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

BODY CORPORATE ROLL – where the applicant advised the body corporate that her name had changed – whether the body corporate was required to update the roll – whether a voting paper completed in the applicant’s new name was valid. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 101, 223-225

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279

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

ACN 071 773 969; Building and Property; Costs

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where owner claims for damage to property – whether damage was caused by upstairs owner’s failure to maintain lot in good condition resulting in water ingress to lot below – whether orders should be made pursuant to section 281 of the Act. Act, ss 20, 227, 228, 229A, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where owner claims for damage to property – whether damage was caused by body corporate’s breach of its maintenance obligations resulting in water ingress to owner’s lot – whether orders should be made pursuant to section 281 of the Act. Act, ss 20, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – whether to change the scheme’s financial year Act, ss 283, 321A

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

• Ratajeshwara Rao Nallamouthu lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 39988 owners corp
• Zeljko Milic party
• Kirshan Kumar Khanna party
• Shashi Bhat party
• Marina Fugazza party

The application by the lot owner was dismissed on all grounds, including claims regarding parking enforcement, removal of strata committee members, fire safety repair charges, and access to owners corporation records.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether the votes on a motion to engage a body corporate manager were tallied correctly; whether the resolution should be declared void. Accommodation Module, ss 95(1), 103(d), 210(2), 211, 221(1).

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

• Bernadette York lot owner
• Kevin Edwards lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 675 owners corp

The hearing scheduled for 20 November 2024 was vacated and rescheduled to 16 December 2024, with the applicants ordered to file a revised Court Book, reply submissions identifying the questions of law, and to pay the respondent's costs thrown away.

• Jin Beom Choi lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 53482 owners corp

The appeal from the Tribunal's decision was dismissed; the Tribunal's order deeming a common property rights by-law passed under s 149(1)(b) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 was upheld, with the appellant's refusal to consent to the by-law found to be unreasonable.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the body corporate passed a motion authorising the committee to enter into a contract with a supplier to take over the management of the scheme’s embedded electricity network – where the applicant sought for the motion to be declared invalid. CONSENT ORDER – where the parties have now reached an agreement about the motion – whether an order should be made by consent. Act, ss 276(5), 287; 289

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – The following decisions were made at an AGM by virtue of the caretaking service contractor’s majority vote: budget motions were increased by 10% even though no additional expenditure was authorised at the AGM a motion to reimburse a committee member’s legal fees, incurred in pursuit of the body corporate’s interests, failed a motion to increase the electricity tariff paid by owners failed a motion to spend up to $3,000 on legal advice regarding a lift contract failed, and a motion to rescind a resolution limiting committee expenditure on legal fees to $1,000 per year failed. The applicants ask that the budget increase is reversed, owners are reimbursed the additional contributions they have paid, and the other motions are deemed passed because the body corporate acted unreasonably or committed a fraud on the minority. Act, s 94(2); Accommodation Module, ss 151(2), 162(1)(a), 200.

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

MANTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OF BODY CORPORATE– where rainwater leaked through common property roof- where applicant claims $1,330 for minor damage to property and $15,039 for loss of rent. DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION- where adjudicator is satisfied the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 270(1)(b),

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

COMMITTEE COMPOSITION; GENERAL MEETINGS – validity; BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property from its body corporate manager. Act, s 120(3); Standard Module, ss 13, 38, 41, 74, 76, 235

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

REASONABLENESS – whether a decision made at an extraordinary general meeting is unreasonable MAINTENANCE – where lot owners installed garage doors within walls on the boundaries of their lots and common property land – whether the body corporate is or can be responsible for maintaining these garage doors Act, s 94; Standard Module, ss 52, 180, 187

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

GENERAL MEETING – whether ratification of expenditure exceeding the major and body corporate committee spending limits was effective; whether sufficient information was provided to consider before a motion to ratify expenditure. BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate failed to provide body corporate records to the applicant; whether records requested are not held by the body corporate; whether records requested have already been provided by the body corporate. Act, s 205; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 164, 220

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

BY-LAWS – whether the removal of an iron screen involves is a minor change and a structural alteration to common property – whether it detracts from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds COSTS – whether the respondent should pay the cost of the application fees for department conciliation and adjudication for this dispute Act, s 280

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

REASONABLENESS – where a motion seeking approval for a colour change to Lot 6’s patio doors was not approved by the committee – whether the committee acted unreasonably in making its decision on the motion. Act, ss 94, 100

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION; MAINTENANCE – where the windows enclosing the applicants’ balcony are leaking and require replacement, but the body corporate voted down a motion to have new windows installed; where owners were given little evidence that replacement was necessary and only one quotation was presented with the motion, despite the proposed expenditure exceeding the relevant limit for major spending; whether the motion should be deemed to have passed. Standard Module, ss 162(2), 173, 180(2)(a)(ii).

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [[2017] QSC 001](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b2017%5d%20QSC%20001 "View LawCiteRecord") Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [[2006] HCA 46](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/46.html "View Case") Act, ss 276, 279

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