Decisions table

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 5403 owners corp
• Sargents Developments Pty Ltd lot owner
• Ian Douglas Allen lot owner
• M K Murphie Holdings Pty Ltd lot owner
• Patience Laws lot owner
• Lorenz Pau Julien Trouillet lot owner
• Cameron McTaggart lot owner
• Andrew Pilcher Wines lot owner
• Nathan David Keevers lot owner
• Stephen Goerner lot owner
• Michelle Madeline Phibbs lot owner
• A McCoy lot owner

The application to reallocate unit entitlements among 24 lots was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the valuations of the lots in accordance with accepted valuation principles, a threshold requirement for such applications.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where a general meeting motion gave owners a choice between three quotations for new balustrades, but the quotations differed with respect to the spacing of the balusters; where the existing balustrades are timber but the new will be aluminium; whether the quotations should all have offered balusters with the same spacing; whether the new balustrades are an improvement to common property requiring authorisation by special resolution; whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing the successful motion until these questions can be answered. Act, ss 10(2)(b), 279(1); Standard Module, ss 173, 180(2)(a)(i), 186.

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

• Kristen Nimmons lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 10441 owners corp

The costs application of the respondent to vary the costs order and obtain costs of the notice of appeal was dismissed, with the panel finding insufficient special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

INTERIM ORDER – whether warranted - where committee has refused to reconsider access conditions it imposed on the applicant’s pet approval. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the applicant sought approval to install exterior window awnings – where the motion did not pass – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably. Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, s 187

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

LAND LAW – Community Land Development Act 1989 (NSW) – Community Land Development Act 1989 (NSW) – creation of by-laws for restricted use – interpretation of by-laws – effectiveness of grant of by-law made by strata scheme on subdivision of strata lot – whether particular common property the subject of the grant. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – referral of adjudication proceedings commenced under the Community Land Management Act 1989 (NSW) to the Tribunal – permissibility of including in those referre

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20548 owners corp
• Mount Street 4 Pty Ltd aft Mount Street 4 Unit Trust party
• Keith Anthony Bond lot owner
• Taunton10 Pty Ltd lot owner

Taunton10 Pty Ltd was joined as third respondent to the strata renewal proceedings pursuant to section 181(6)(b) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW), and costs of the motion were reserved.

MANTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OF BODY CORPORATE– where applicant claims cost of repairing damage in the amount of $66,722.61 allegedly resulting from water leaks that it claims were the responsibility of the body corporate -where applicant also claims loss of rent in the amount of $50,370.00 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), 276(5)

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

JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether there is a ‘dispute’ in circumstances where applicant, respondent body corporate and Affected Persons are in agreement on the orders sought – whether final orders should be made. Act, ss 4, 171, 227, 238(1)(b), 270(1)(b), 276

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

FINANCIAL YEAR – whether the financial year end date for the body corporate should be changed. Act, s 283.

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE; MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate removed shutters from the applicant’s lot in preparation for repairs to the waterproof membrane on his patio, allegedly damaging his property in the process; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant for repairs, replace his damaged property, carry out further waterproofing work to his patio, and reimburse his conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 239(1)(c) & (4)(a), 280; Standard Module, ss 180(2)(a)(iii), 211(2)-(3).

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

IMPROVEMENT – where in a 2-lot scheme an owner seeks approval to install a fence to exclusive use area – where other owner refuses consent – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether approval should be granted. PET BY-LAW – where owner challenges validity of pet by-law – whether by-law is inconsistent with the Act – whether the by-law should be removed. Act, s94, 169B, ; Two-lot Schemes Module, s45

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

MAINTENANCE – where hot water pipes require replacement – where hot water pipes are common property – where applicant argues body corporate must administer, manage and control hot water pipes DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY - where body corporate resolved to decommission the common property hot water system and pipes - where applicant argues decommission of hot water system and pipes is a disposal of common property IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where applicant argues that installation of a hot water system on common property is a disposal of common property REASONABLENESS – where applicant argues decommission of hot water system breaches the duty to act reasonably Act, ss 20, 94, 152, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 174, 178

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.

• Easy Trades Australia Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 3844 owners corp

The appeal by the builder against the first instance decision awarding the owners corporation $61,708.68 for defective works (including a concrete staircase and brickwork) was dismissed, with the Appeal Panel confirming the Senior Member's findings on defects, rectification methodology, and rejection of the builder's set-off claim.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – Where a recent general meeting resolved to: increase the relevant limit for major spending for the purpose of installing solar panels and related infrastructure on the common property, authorise expenditure of $440,000 on the solar project, engage a company to consult on these works, and enter into a power purchase agreement that would include a licence over part of the common property. Where the applicant argues: the major spending limit should not have been increased, additional quotations should have been obtained, no details of the proposed works on common property were provided to owners, the proposed engagement of the consultant was out of date, and all relevant details of the power purchase agreement and licence were not provided. Whether the motions should be declared void. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 125, 163, 176.

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

• Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 32396 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's decision to decline to extend time for bringing recovery proceedings for water damage more than two years after the loss occurred was upheld.

ACCESS TO A LOT – where the body corporate has issued a notice of entry seeking access to the respondents’ lot and where the respondents have refused access – whether orders are warranted. Act, s 163; Standard Module, s 180

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 – where hot water pipes require replacement – where hot water pipes are common property – where applicant argues body corporate must maintain hot water pipes DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY - where body corporate resolved to decommission the common property hot water system and pipes - where applicant argues decommission of hot water system and pipes is a disposal of common property REASONABLENESS – where applicant argues decommission of hot water system breaches the duty to act reasonably Act, ss 20, 94, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 174, 178

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.

COMMITTEE DECISION – REASONABLENESS – The applicant lot owner required and received committee approval to install CCTV system on their lot. The applicant later sought and was denied approval to move the cameras to a different location on the lot. The applicant’s use of CCTV had previously raised privacy concerns for neighbours. The committee denied approval to move the cameras due to privacy concerns, but did not seek to negotiate suitable conditions of approval with the applicant. Should committee approval should be deemed to be given? Act, s 100(5)

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

• Alison Loise Smith lot owner
• Grant Darren Smith lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 43094 owners corp

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed; the original orders requiring the Smiths to remove unauthorised works (pergola, benches, and window) and restore the common property were upheld, with extended compliance timeframes.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93804 owners corp
• M Services & Maintenance Pty Ltd contractor

The respondent's application for a further extension of time to comply with work orders made on 11 September 2019 was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $500,000 as compensation for the uncompleted rectification works.

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate has an obligation to maintain roofing membranes that are not common property – whether the body corporate has met that obligation – whether the obligation includes reinstatement of soil and vegetation that was removed ACCESS TO A LOT – whether the body corporate’s entry notice was issued for a valid purpose. Act, s 163; Accommodation Module, s 170.

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

NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – where the respondents have smoked in their exclusive use courtyard and occupier of neighbouring lot has experienced smoke drift and odour – whether the respondents have caused a hazard or unreasonable interference to others in breach of the Act. s167 Act.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant says the committee was not authorised or otherwise acted unreasonably in passing resolutions to undertake works - whether interim orders stopping implementation of the resolutions is warranted – whether interim orders requiring the body corporate provide copies of records is warranted. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 44, 162, 221.

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

COMMITTEE COMPOSITION - Eligibility to be Voting Member of Committee- where member of committee receives payment for conducting maintenance of common property under a contract of service. COMMON PROPERTY – whether reasonable to use part of indoor common property area for a caretakers office Act, ss 15, 94, 276 Accommodation Module, ss 11 Villanella [[2017] QBCCMCmr 248](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2017/248.html "View Case") Workpac v Rossato & Ors [2021] HCA 23 CFME Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [[2022] HCA 1](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2022/1.html "View Case") Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [[2001] HCA 44](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/44.html "View Case")

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

JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether adjudicator has power to make orders for lost rental income associated with maintenance works undertaken by body corporate. REASONABLENESS – whether committee for body corporate acted reasonably in making decisions related to maintenance works and providing body corporate records. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 276, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

SMOKING – whether the respondent is smoking on scheme land and the applicant is regularly exposed to it; whether the respondent may only smoke outside the scheme. Act, s 167(2); Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, s 112.

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

• Judith Gates lot owner
• Paul Carpenter lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 5165 owners corp

The respondent's costs application was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the interim application.

MAINTENANCE – where owner experienced water ingress to her lot – where the body corporate’s initial attempts to rectify the leak have failed – whether the leak is caused by a failed waterproofing membrane in the balcony above – whether orders to rectify the leak remain warranted in the circumstances. Accommodation Module, s 170

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

INTERIM ORDER – where applicant says a proposed motion to appeal an earlier adjudicators order is misleading – whether an interim order to stop implementation of the resolution if passed is warranted Act, s 279

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.

APPEALS – Finding of breach of duty to maintain and repair common property - exercise of discretion - no error of law- no basis for granting leave to appeal

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where motions to install a new electric gate on common property were deemed to have passed by ordinary resolution despite proposing expenditure above the “ordinary resolution improvement range”; whether the body corporate should be prevented from going ahead with the installation before the application can be decided. Act, ss 106(3)(b), 247(3), 279; Standard Module, ss 173, 186.

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

NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – where the respondents smoke on their lot balcony and occupiers of neighbouring lots experience smoke drift and odour – whether the respondents are contravening scheme by-laws and causing a hazard or unreasonable interference to others in breach of the Act. ss 59,167,182 Act.

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

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – whether to change the financial year end date of the body corporate. Act, s283

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the body corporate authorised the committee to enter into an agreement with the caretaking service contractor to allow the organising of events as an ancillary service to the caretaker’s letting activities – whether the motion was sufficiently clear to be enforceable – whether there was a delegation of the body corporate’s powers – whether it was a restricted issue for the committee – whether the purported use of common property requires the grant of a proprietary right such as a lease or licence of the common property – whether the motion was valid. Act, ss 97, 167; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 88, 174

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

REASONABLENESS; UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – The applicant paid a plumber to unblock a drain that turned out to be common property. The committee refused to reimburse the expenditure because it was not satisfied the item that blocked the drain had been there since the construction of the scheme. The applicant argues the committee acted unreasonably and its decision should be reversed. Act, ss 20, 100(7), 280; Accommodation Module, s 170(1); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – Where the applicant has challenged five motions passed at the scheme’s 2024 annual general meeting – where the applicant is seeking interim orders to restrain the body corporate from implementing the motions while final orders are decided – whether there are urgent circumstances that warrant interim orders being made. Act, ss 270, 279; Accommodation Module, ss 125, 163, 174, 176

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to engage a body corporate manager referred to a 3-year term – where committee information referred to the engagement as being for a further 12 months – whether the motion should be amended – ADMINSTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, s 278; Commercial Module, ss 44, 45, 91

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where fencing has been installed on common property without approval – whether the fencing should be removed. Standard Module, ss 184, 187

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

CARETAKING SERVICE CONTRACTOR - ENGAGEMENTS AND AUTHORISATIONS – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PROPRIETORS – whether decision of body corporate to extend Caretaking Service Agreement was valid STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – USE OF EXTRINSIC MATERIAL Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), ss. 94, 122, 227, 229, 318. Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s. 14A, 14B, 32C. Statutory Instruments Act 1992, s 14 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld), ss. 135, 136, 140, 141 Explanatory Notes, Body Corporate and Community Management Legislation Amendment Regulation(No 1) 2003 (Qld) Lill v Ryan [[2011] QCATA 124](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCATA/2011/124.html "View Case") Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [[2011] HCA 10](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/10.html "View Case"); (2011) 242 CLR 573 Minister for Immigration v SZAYW [[2005] FCAFC 154](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/154.html "View Case"); (2005) 145 FCR 523 Strata Plan No. 74602 v Eastmark Holdings Pty Ltd [](../../../../BCCM/Appeal%20&%20External%20Decisions/External%20decisions/The%20Owners%20-%20Strata%20Plan%20No.%2074602%20v%20Eastmark%20Holdings%20Pty%20Limited%20%5b2013%5d%20NSWCA%20221.pdf)[[2013] NSWCA 221](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/221.html "View Case")

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – whether motion proposed spending in excess of committee spending limit; REASONABLENESS – whether committee acted reasonably in the circumstances when it decided to engage a particular law firm. Act, s 100(5); Standard Module, ss 168, 172

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

Scheme dispute - Fencing - Decorative screens - CCTV - Pergola/patio - Driveway - Whether repair/upkeep or alteration/improvement - Use and enjoyment of common property - Exclusive use area - By-laws - Proper construction of by-law - Whether breach of by-law - Whether in keeping with the strata complex - Functions of strata company - Whether resolution contravenes strata company duty regarding common property - Objectives of strata company - Whether resolution contravenes strata company objectives - Reimbursement of cost of report - Tribunal proceedings - Statutory discretion to make declarations and orders to resolve scheme dispute or proceeding

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

COMMITTEE MOTIONS – where the body corporate considered several motions about issuing by-law contravention notices – whether the decisions were valid. Act, ss 94, 100, 182-188; Standard Module, s 66

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

REASONABLENESS – where a payment the applicant had made went missing when the body corporate switched body corporate managers and this led to debt accruing on the applicant’s account – where the applicant disputed this debt but ultimately paid it in order to finalise the sale of her lot – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in pursuing the debt and whether it is obligated to reimburse the applicant. Act, ss 94, 100, 280; Standard Module, s 166

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

INSURANCE – A storm damaged a balcony of lot 6 and an improvement to common property on the rooftop above it. The owner claimed on the body corporate’s insurance, but the body corporate committee cancelled the claim because it said it could repair the balcony for less than the cost of the excess, and the rooftop structure was not constructed in the manner authorised by the body corporate. The applicant claims the balcony was not properly repaired. The applicant says the body corporate acted unreasonably, should allow the insurance claim to proceed, and should carry out further repairs to the balcony. Act, ss 11(1), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 180(2), 187, 195, 198(2), 201, 203(4), 211(3).

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order should be extended. Act, s 279

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