Decisions table

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the committee resolved to lock the foyer door to the scheme – whether the committee had the authority to make that decision. Act, ss 94, 100; Accommodation Module, s 44

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the body corporate resolved to employ an owner – whether previous resolutions affecting the position had been complied with – whether the motion conflicted with previous resolutions – whether the motion is valid. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 101(2), 242; Standard Module, ss 88, 116

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

• Raysons Constructions Pty Limited builder
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 87003 owners corp

The Appeal Panel upheld Raysons Constructions' appeal, set aside the Tribunal's orders in favour of The Owners, and ordered The Owners to pay Raysons Constructions' costs of both the appeal and the Tribunal proceedings on the ordinary basis, declining to award indemnity costs despite Calderbank offers.

IMPROVEMENTS TO EXCLUSIVE USE COMMON PROPERTY \- where improvement (light fitting) made by owner \- where another improvement (cantilevered umbrella structure) was made several years ago before transfer to the current owner, whether body corporate approval for the improvements was ever sought. Section 37A \_Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (\_BUGTA) REASONABLENESS – obligation of body corporate to act reasonably. Sections 27(4) & 79 BUGTA COMPLIANCE WITH BY- LAWS – SMOKING - whether respondent has contravened by-law 17.3 by smoking in his exclusive use courtyard Section 30(5), 77, 78 BUGTA

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

BY-LAW – where the respondent commenced significant renovation works on her lot – where the body corporate recorded a new by-law relating to works on lots and common property – whether the by-law is valid – whether the respondent required approval for the work – whether the respondent is in breach of the by-law. Act, ss 94, 169, 180, 182-188

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

• Jade Y Hsueh lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61321 owners corp

The owners corporation was ordered to rectify water ingress and related defects at Lot 5 within three months and to pay the applicant $11,504 for mould treatment costs and floor damage, but the application was otherwise dismissed including claims for lost rental income, screen door replacement, and declaration regarding levy arrears.

Survey strata plan - Scheme dispute - Financial management of strata company - Administrative fund - Levy contribution on owners - Amounts to be raised for payment into administrative fund - Strata manager - Strata management fees - Strata scheme expenses - By-laws - Unit entitlement - Common property - Exemption from paying contribution - Whether by-law requiring all lot owners to contribute towards the strata management's fees is invalid - Whether by-law unfairly prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory - Whether by-law oppressive or unreasonable - Whether contribution levied excessive - Tribunal proceedings - Statutory discretion to make orders to resolve dispute or proceeding

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where defects on common property allowed water ingress to a lot, damaging ceilings; whether the body corporate must repair the common property and ceilings. Act, s 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 162(2), 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where defects on common property allowed water ingress to a lot, damaging window frames; whether the body corporate must repair the common property and window frames. Act, s 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 162(2), 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

IMPROVEMENT – where owner sought approval to install a blind on his balcony – where body corporate refused consent – whether by-laws required consent to be obtained – whether body corporate acted reasonably. Act, s94(2); Standard Module, s187

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 94(1), 100(5), 279

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

REASONABLENESS – whether motion proposing changes to the exclusive use by-laws of the scheme, requiring resolution without dissent failed to pass because of opposition that was unreasonable Act, ss 62, 170, 171, Schedule 5

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94784 owners corp
• Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd developer
• Mirvac Constructions Pty Ltd builder
• Daniel Russell consultant

The court refused to make a personal costs order against the plaintiff's solicitor Daniel Russell, finding that although steps could have been taken more expeditiously to engage with experts, the delay was not caused by serious neglect, incompetence, misconduct or improper conduct on his part.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by not providing retrospective approval for the installation of a fence on common property or the scheme boundary Act, ss 94(1) and (2), 100(5) and 152(1); Standard Module, s 180(1)

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

REASONABLENESS – where a lot owner sought approval to install whirlybirds on common property for the benefit of their lot, whether committee acted reasonably or made a legally unreasonable decision when it decided to refuse to approve the whirlybirds. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), Standard Module s 187

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent or his associates are parking on common property in breach of the by-laws – whether the respondent has signage and advertising on his lot in breach of the by-laws – whether orders to stop this conduct are warranted – whether the body corporate can tow a vehicle. Act, ss 94, 163A, 192-188

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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION - where body corporate resolved to carry out works to common property – where owner challenges reasonableness of the decision and the type of resolution required for approval – whether decision should be invalidated. Act, s94(2); Small Scheme Module, s105

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

MAINTENANCE IN A BUILDING FORMAT PLAN Responsibility for maintenance of balustrades and waterproofing membranes. Maintenance obligations of bodies corporate / Maintenance obligations of lot owners Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 279 Standard Module, s 180, s 211. National Construction Code, Volume 2

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the applicant suffered damage to the lot due to a lack of maintenance of common property pipes and waterproofing; where the applicant seeks an amount greater than an adjudicator may order. MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate should undertake maintenance works to pipes, a shower in a lot, garden bed waterproofing, and inspect pipes for blockages. Act, ss 20, 270, 281; Standard Module, s 180.

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

LAND LAW – Easements – Right of Way – Full and free right for every person entitled to an estate or interest in the dominant tenement, and every person authorised by them, to go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes, with or without vehicles, to and from the dominant tenement - Whether the defendant (servient owner) is infringing the right of the plaintiff (dominant owner) to enjoy the easement according to its terms and free of substantial interference by the servient owner, by ref

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

REASONABLESS – where the applicant constructed a shed on common property in the scheme’s basement carpark – where the body corporate passed a motion at a general meeting for the shed to be removed but the applicant submits the decision is unreasonable – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94

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.

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO EXCLUSIVE USE AREA – where the respondents fixed a storage rack to the ceiling of their exclusive use parking space and store various items there; where the exclusive use by-law says the area “may only be used for the parking of a registered motor vehicle”; whether the storage rack and other items must be removed. Standard Module, ss 193(3), 228(3).

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

• Helen Mary Dart lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan 71849 owners corp

The appeal was allowed on questions of law; the Tribunal's findings on the number of common property items requiring repair were based on no evidence, the Tribunal failed to consider whether the limitation period applied to a work order application, and the Tribunal applied a wrong legal principle regarding limitation periods for work orders, resulting in remittal to the Tribunal for redetermination.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the applicant disputes 6 general meeting resolutions – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in passing the motions – whether the motions are otherwise invalid. Act, s 94

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

MAINTENANCE – whether respondents have failed to comply with maintenance obligations and have failed to rectify fire safety defects, -whether orders for work to be undertaken are warranted. Act, ss 163, 167; Accommodation Module, ss 201, 202

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

MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate resolved to paint the entire building with the costs to come from the sinking fund – where the applicant says maintenance of the balconies, patios and exclusive use areas are owners’ responsibilities – whether the painting and remedial works are required to maintain the elements of the building in a structurally sound condition – whether the body corporate can validly incur the cost of the work – whether the sinking fund budget is valid. Act s94(2); Accommodation Module ss 150(3), 170(2), 182(2)&(3), 200

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the body corporate is responsible for repairing a leaking shower within a lot, and relevelling a floor forming a boundary of the lot, in a building that has experienced subsidence and building movement. Act, s 281(1)(a); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1)&(2)(b), 201(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

ACCESS TO A LOT – whether the body corporate may erect scaffolding on a lot balcony during structural repairs to a slab on a higher level. Act, s 163; Standard Module, s 180(2)(b)(ii)-(iii).

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

BY-LAWS – where the respondents have installed hard flooring in their lot – whether the respondents have complied with the hard flooring by-laws. Act, ss 180 to 186

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has contravened the by-laws by running a power cord from his lot to his vehicle parked on common property; by installing a shade sail on common property without body corporate approval; and by installing a fence gate on common property without body corporate approval REASONABLENESS – whether the applicant acted unreasonably by selectively and inconsistently enforcing the by-laws against the respondent and not other owners and occupiers – whether the applicant unreasonably withheld approval for the respondent to install a shade sail on common property – whether the applicant acted unreasonably by requiring the respondent to restore the fence to its original condition but without a gate BIAS – whether the decisions of the committee were impacted by any bias on the part of the chairperson Act, ss 94, 100, 159, 168(2); Standard Module, s 187

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

REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate committee has refused to amend the access condition it imposed on the applicant’s pet approval – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94; 100

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

JURISDICTION – where an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute under the Act, whether an application seeking the recovery of a debt is a debt dispute under the Act, and whether a defence raised by the respondents that the debt is not payable can be determined by an adjudicator REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by not providing the respondents with a further opportunity to repair the ruptured pipe themselves; by not notifying the respondents that it would be proceeding with the repair works; and by purportedly failing to communicate effectively with the respondents – whether the repair costs are unreasonable MAINTENANCE – UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether the respondents can avoid responsibility to maintain a pipe that solely services their lot and is within their lot on the basis that they did not cause damage to the pipe and that they did not originally install the pipe Act, ss 20, 94, 100, 160, 161 and 229A; Standard Module, ss 180, 211 and 212

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 100(5), s 279; Standard Module, ss 168, 172

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

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the applicant sought the approval of the body corporate committee to renovate her two adjoining lots, including by making an opening in a load-bearing wall between them; where the committee refused because it believed it could not permit any change to load-bearing walls nor any interference with the support provided by the wall to lots above; whether the committee acted unreasonably and approval should be deemed to have been given. Act, ss 100(5), 165; Standard Module, ss 58(6)(b), 180(2)(b)(iii); Land Title Act 1994, s 115N; Planning Act 2016, ss 44(3), 48(1)-(2); Planning Regulation 2017, s 21(4), schedules 7 & 8; Building Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a)(ii), 20, 21, schedule 2.

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

BY-LAWS – where lot owner/ occupier has erected a pergola and fence on common property without firstly seeking permission of the body corporate - where body corporate has issued a Notice of Continuing Contravention of a Body Corporate By-law COMMON PROPERTY – where a fence and a pergola/ awning structure have been erected on the common property and no rights of exclusive use have been granted by the body corporate – authorisation required. Act, ss152, 159, 171. Katsikalis v Body Corporate for The Centre [[2009] QCA 77.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2009/77.html "View Case")

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

MEETING NOTICE – whether the body corporate can hold an extraordinary general meeting without 21 days’ notice. Act, s 243A; Commercial Module, s 49

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

• SafeWork NSW government
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 93899 owners corp

The Owners Strata Plan No 93899 was convicted of failing to ensure the workplace was without risks to health and safety after a damaged gate fell and fatally crushed a worker; ordered to pay a fine of $225,000 and prosecution costs of $40,000.

MAINTENANCE – cracking of floor/ ceiling in building format plan – obligation of body corporate to undertake repairs - whether body corporate is responsible for repair of consequential damage to a lot. APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR – Extension of powers. Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281, 301 Standard Module, s 159. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")

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

MAINTENANCE – cracking of floor/ ceiling in building format plan – obligation of body corporate to undertake repairs - whether body corporate is responsible for repair of consequential damage to a lot. APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR – Extension of powers. Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281, 301 Standard Module, s 159. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where a motion to be decided at a forthcoming general meeting will propose amending the caretaking service contractor’s engagement and authorisation to remove the requirement that it owns a lot at the scheme; where the applicants object to the body corporate committee’s explanatory note urging a vote in favour of the motion and seek an order that, if passed, the motion is void; whether to prevent the motion from being implemented before the application is decided. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 279(1); Accommodation Module, ss 76(1)(b)&(5), 80(7), 125.

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

APPEALS (UNIT TITLES) – responsibility of owners corporation to maintain common property – meaning of ‘common property’ – whether a unit’s doors and windows opening onto a unit subsidiary of the unit (in this case, a balcony) are common property – no error in finding the doors and windows are not common property – appeal dismissed Legislation cited: Legislation Act 2001 s 140 Unit Titles Act 2001 ss 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, Dictionary Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 10, 19, 20, 24, 125, 129, Dictionary

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where the applicant sought approval to bring a dog when holidaying in their lot – where approval was refused - whether the committee acted reasonably – whether approval should be given. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 - contract to undertake residential building work– non est factum – purported oral variation to scope of works - waterproofing - failure to comply with Australian Standard and Building Code of Australia BUILDING AND CONSTRUTION – Statutory duty of care under s37 of Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 – waterproofing - failure to comply with Australian Standard and Building Code of Australia

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the body corporate installed steel beams and posts on the applicant’s balcony to support the overhead balcony slab that had been compromised by concrete cancer; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s cost of concealing the steel behind painted fibre cement sheets; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 167, 280, 281; Standard Module, ss 180(1) & (2)(b)(ii), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

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

MAINTENANCE – whether maintenance of a particular window in a body corporate scheme established under a building format plan of subdivision is the responsibility of the body corporate or the applicant lot owner. Act, s 152; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

Owners Corporations; Costs

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. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

MAINTENANCE; EASEMENT – where the body corporate had a common property water pipe within a lot replaced and the plumber installed the new pipe in a different location; where the body corporate’s expenditure on the work was not properly authorised and the new pipe would obstruct cabinets the applicant hoped to install in his lot; where the applicant claims the committee exceeds its spending limit, fails to keep proper records or provide access to them, and excludes him from correspondence; whether the new water pipe must be returned to the location of the old pipe and the body corporate must audit its statement of accounts. Act, ss 20, 62, 68(1), 70(1)(b) & (2)(b), 94(2), 100(5), 101B(3), 108, 186; Standard Module, ss 45, 172, 176(1), 180(1), 187; Land Title Act 1994, s 115O.

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