Decisions table

BY-LAWS – whether installation of a granny flat variation to external appearance – where lot owner directed to architectural review committee in error – role of the body corporate and its committee. Act, ss 94, 97, 100

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 Standard Module, s 180.

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 92334 owners corp
• Peng Zheng lot owner
• Ning Lu lot owner

The respondents were found to have contravened by-law 27 by parking vehicles on common property in breach of a Notice to Comply with By-laws dated 21 December 2022, and were ordered to pay a penalty of $550.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the sale of removed fixtures from the common property was actioned on behalf of the body corporate or individuals in their private capacity – whether money was given to the body corporate or individuals in their private capacity. Act, ss 150, 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, ss 157, 180.

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

REIMBURSEMENT FROM BODY CORPORATE – where the body corporate invoiced an owner for a charge levied by the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services for an unwanted smoke alarm activation in the owner’s lot – where the owner paid the invoice yet disputes the body corporate’s power to recover the money - whether the body corporate must reimburse the owner.

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

No. 2

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to reimburse the owner of Lot 2 for works he carried out at the scheme was considered at an extraordinary general meeting and passed – where the applicant submits the body corporate’s decision to pass the motion was unlawful and unreasonable – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 152, 270, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 176, 170, 201

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

WHERE VOTING RIGHTS IMPROPERLY DENIED – section 92 Act Order that may be made by a Referee in such circumstances. Power of Referee to declare purported Resolution to be a nullity. Extension of time to apply for order under section 92(2) Act Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 ss 73, 76, 77, 92.

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

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; EXCLUSIVE USE; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – where a new community management statement was recorded to correct errors in the existing statement with respect to the allocation of exclusive use parking spaces on common property – whether the new statement is invalid because the motion to record it was not passed by resolution without dissent, the statement did not include an explanation of the lot entitlements in effect at the scheme, or the exclusive use parking arrangements in the statement are inequitable – whether the applicant should be allocated a new undercover exclusive use parking space or the body corporate should convene a general meeting to consider it. Act, ss 62, 66(1)(db), 171(2)(b), 270, 280, 339; Standard Module, s 84.

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

EGM RESOLUTION striking SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION – whether valid. Act, s 150; Accommodation Module, ss 89(3)(b), 106, 150(1), 152(2), 163

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

BY-LAWS – whether an owner has created noise in breach of a by-law Act, ss 167, 184

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

BY-LAWS – determining applicable by-laws for the scheme – whether hanging washing and parking in shared driveway a contravention of the by-laws – whether lot owner must take reasonable steps to ensure invitees do not interfere with lawful use of common property – whether the respondent has contravened the by-laws – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 94, 280, 339

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

MAINTENANCE – REIMBURSEMENT – whether the body corporate was liable for various claimed maintenance failures – whether the applicant sufficiently evidenced claimed expenses for attending to maintenance from an admitted body corporate maintenance failure Act, s 94; Standard Module, s 180

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondents painted the exterior of their side of the building in a different colour – whether the painting was agreed to – required standard for decision-making by a body corporate. Small Schemes Module, ss 106, 112

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether decision to not pass a motion at a general meeting was unreasonable – whether order giving effect to the motion should be made – change in liability for supply of utility service Act, ss 94, 196; Standard Module, s 210.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 13631 owners corp
• Peter McGrath lot owner
• Kate Elizabeth Barrington lot owner

Both the applicant's and first respondent's applications for costs were dismissed as special circumstances warranting a costs order were not established.

BY-LAWS – parties to the dispute – whether the respondent has parked vehicles on common property visitor parking spaces in breach of the by-law – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 94, 184-6

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

MAINTENANCE / PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant alleges a leak in the common property roof caused damage to her lot and a loss of rental income – whether the body corporate should reimburse the applicant for the expenses she incurred and carry out further repairs to the applicant’s lot Act, ss 152, 276, 281; Small Schemes Module, ss 99

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

BY-LAWS - MAINTENANCE – whether the respondent must repair a broken window in their lot. Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201, 202

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

IMPROVEMENTS – where owner has installed fence on common property - whether body corporate approval had been obtained – whether by-laws have been breached – whether approval requires ordinary resolution – whether installation of the fence amounts to a disposition of common property. Act, s184; Standard Module, ss 184(2),187

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

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether a motion requiring a resolution without dissent failed to pass because of opposition that was unreasonable. Act, ss 62, 170, 171, Schedule 5 Item 10.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 64807 owners corp
• Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd contractor

The application to dismiss and transfer proceedings to Supreme Court were refused; proceedings stayed pending finalisation of Supreme Court proceedings; application to amend refused; costs reserved.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate has imposed entry and exit access conditions on the applicant’s pet approval – where the applicant argues the entry and exit conditions are oppressive and unreasonable – whether the circumstances warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100

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. Act, ss 94(2), 279

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURE – GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether the original owner held powers of attorney for owners – whether a general meeting called by the representative of the original owner was valid – whether motions were valid – COMMITTEE MOTIONS – whether the representative of the original owner constituted the committee – whether motions passed by the representative of the original owner were valid – BODY CORPORATE DEBT – whether levies were waived – whether an order can be made about a debt. Act, 96, 211, 229A; Standard Module, 9, 13, 52, 91, 94, 101, 162, 224

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

• Nerrida de Beck lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 30468 owners corp
• Brilliant Property Group Pty Ltd manager

A compulsory strata managing agent (Brilliant Property Group Pty Ltd) was appointed to exercise all functions of the owners corporation for 12 months due to the management not functioning satisfactorily, including inadequate roof leak repairs, unresolved toilet maintenance issues, failure to remove an unauthorised bollard, and failure to prepare a required capital works plan.

MOTION to enter into new caretaking service contract – whether ruled out of order incorrectly; whether resolved. Act, ss 101, 108; Accommodation Module, ss 79, 88, 91, 106, 125, 147, 163

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondent painted the exterior of their side of the building in a different colour – whether the painting was agreed to – required standard for decision-making by a body corporate. Small Schemes Module, ss 106, 112

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

RECORDS – whether the body corporate failed to provide body corporate records to the applicant. Act, s 205; Accommodation Module, ss 220, 222

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

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property - whether the respondent has failed to comply with the request – whether control of the bank account should be transferred. Accommodation Module, s 224

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

MAINTENANCE – BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is breaching the regulations or the by-laws in regard to the cleaning and maintenance of his lot. Act, ss 167, 181-188; Accommodation Module, s 201

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 4393 owners corp
• Mei Lan Roberts lot owner
• The Commissioner for Fair Trading of the Department of Customer Service government

The respondent was ordered to pay civil penalties totalling $8,250 for contravening tribunal stop work orders by carrying out plumbing work, structural works, and other renovations on her lot, and to pay the applicant's costs on an ordinary basis.

Owners Corporations

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

EMERGENCY ORDER. Act, s 243A

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

EMERGENCY ORDER. Act, s 243A

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.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for recusal – where plaintiff identified no basis for recusal – request refused JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – where plaintiff brought application to set aside orders – where plaintiff did not materially engage with provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – where plaintiff alleges judge had hidden and malicious agenda – application dismissed

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing resolution to proceed with painting works. Act, s279

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

MAINTENANCE – where there are building defects affecting the applicant’s lot – whether . COSTS – where the respondent failed to participate in conciliation – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 280; Standard Module, s 180

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

CONSENT ORDER – whether an order should be made by consent. Act, ss 252J, 270(1)(b), 276(5)

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

• Promina Design & Construction Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 97449 owners corp

The respondent's application for costs of the appeal was dismissed as rule 38 did not apply and no special circumstances warranting an award of costs were established.

GENERAL MEETING VOTING – where a new owner provided their details for the roll, but the body corporate did not enter those details in the roll before a general meeting – where the owner’s vote was excluded because they were not on the roll – where a motion failed by one vote – whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 91, 213, 214

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

• TMCM Enterprises Pty Ltd lot owner
• Global Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd party
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 78894 owners corp
• Strata Community Insurance Agencies Pty Ltd insurer
• KatzBergin Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd consultant

The court ordered the second plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amounts of $65,000 for the first defendant, $65,000 for the second defendant, and $90,000 for the third defendant, with proceedings stayed until security is provided.

INTERIM ORDER The body corporate refused the applicant’s request to keep a pet. Should an interim order be made to allow the applicant to keep a pet, pending a final determination of the application? Act, s 100(5) INTERIM ORDERS: Pending further or final order, and with effect for no more than 12 months, the owner and occupiers of Lot 39 are deemed to have the Body Corporate’s approval to keep the dog Lulu on the scheme, subject to the following conditions: a. The dog must ordinarily be kept within the lot when on scheme land, and must not be on the common property except while restrained and being taken to or from the lot. b. The dog must not interfere unreasonably with any person's use or enjoyment of another lot or the common property. This approval does not apply to an additional or different animal. The Body Corporate may take steps to have the dog removed if it has reasonable grounds to believe that these conditions have not been substantially complied with and the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with written notice of the alleged non-compliance.

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is breaching a parking by-law. Act, ss 183, 184, 280.

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

PROPERY DAMAGE – where the applicant claims a window was damaged by the body corporate’s cleaning contractor – whether the body corporate is responsible for the cost of replacing the window – INSURANCE EXCESS – where an intruder damaged the applicant’s garage doors – where the damage was covered by insurance – whether the body corporate should pay the insurance excess. Act, s 94(2), 100(5), 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201, 203

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – to erect temporary fencing between lots 1-7 and the river boardwalk - whether valid. Act, s 100(5)

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