Decisions table

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – REASONABLENESS – whether committee acted unreasonably in refusing approval for installation of electric vehicle charger. Act, ss 100(5), 159, 173, item 17 of Schedule 5; Accommodation Module, ss 177, 183, 217

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed – who should be appointed, with what powers, and for how long. Act, ss 276, 278, 301

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – where the body corporate committee repeatedly refused to allow an owner to purchase a dog and keep it at the scheme subject to conditions proposed by the body corporate - whether the committee acted unreasonably making the decisions – whether approval for the dog should be deemed granted. Act, s 100(5).

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

GENERAL MEETING; GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether valid. Act, ss 227(1)(c), 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, ss 58, 60(3), 88, 91, 100(e), 106

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to reappoint the body corporate manager was put forward at the scheme’s annual general meeting – where the applicant alleged the motion did not follow the correct procedure and requested it be ruled out of order – where the chairman declined to rule the motion out of order and the motion was carried – whether the motion should be invalidated. Standard Module, s 173

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

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES – whether the committee can refuse to permit electronic attendance of a committee meeting. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, s 55.

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – where the body corporate passed on to the applicant the charge for an unwanted fire alarm activation in the applicant’s lot – where the applicant paid the charge and now disputes it - whether the body corporate should reimburse the charge. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 210

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 2227 owners corp
• Navhand Pty Ltd lot owner

Judgment entered for the Owners Corporation against Navhand for unpaid strata levies, interest, and recovery costs totalling $94,740.78, with the defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate carried out work to an exclusive use area – whether the owner is responsible for the costs of the work carried out – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether the dispute is a ‘debt dispute’; where a fence has fallen into disrepair – whether the body corporate is responsible for replacing it. Act, ss94, 229A; Standard Module, ss192(2), 212

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 8461 owners corp
• Joseph Georghy lot owner

The owners corporation's application for orders to remove items stored on common property, remove unauthorised alterations, prevent vehicle parking, and restore common property was dismissed as the corporation failed to establish its case.

• Bei Bei Tao lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 16107 owners corp

The appeal was upheld and the owners corporation was ordered to undertake all necessary work to repair the internal wall in Lot 8, including stopping water from travelling behind tiles into cement render, removing the watermark, and painting the room to its original condition by 1 March 2024.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 owners corp
• Pafburn Pty Ltd builder
• Madarina Pty Limited developer

The Court allowed the appeal and struck out the builder's proportionate liability defences, holding that the non-delegable duty under section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 is not subject to apportionment under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicant argues that a motion to engage a contractor to install water meters was void – where the motion failed – whether the body corporate should be prevented from engaging a contractor until the validity of the motion can be decided. Act, s 279(1).

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant constructed a shed on common property in the scheme’s basement carpark – where the body corporate voted at a general meeting for the shed to be removed but the applicant submits the decision is unreasonable and in breach of the Act and the code of conduct – whether there are circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 52

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

BY-LAWS – where a by-law specifies that timber shutters matching those in lot 2 are to be installed at the front of the lots – where the respondent removed the timber shutters and replaced them with white linen curtains – whether the respondent must reinstate the timber shutters and reimburse the applicant’s conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 62(3)(a), 169(1)(b)(i), 280.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 21563 owners corp
• Katherine Yvonne Rutherford lot owner

The appeal was allowed and the judgment amount was reduced from $10,169.29 to $7,019.64 by excluding legal costs incurred in pre-litigation mediation, which were found to be prohibited by Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 clause 60.

GENERAL MEETING – where notice was not properly given to owners to propose motions and committee nominations for AGM and late notice was given of the AGM being held – where owner seeks to have AGM held again Standard Module, s 16, 91

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – IMPROVEMENT – EASEMENT – MAINTENANCE WHERE: the body corporate wishes to clean high rise building exterior windows and balustrades; the body corporate wishes to install anchor points on the applicant’s lot to occasionally attach abseiling equipment; the body corporate issued a notice of entry to install the anchor points; the applicant lot owners object because they would be permanent installations; the body corporate says alternatives are not financially viable; the parties have agreed to an interim alternative mechanism which does not require installation of the anchor points WHETHER: the entry notice is valid; the anchor points are an improvement to the lot or instead are utility infrastructure; there is an easement over the lot in favour of installing the anchor points; the anchor points are reasonably necessary to supply the cleaning utility service; the body corporate acted unreasonably in deciding to install the anchor points without consent of the owner Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, ss 158, 163, 68, 94 Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 115P

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 44958 owners corp
• Joanne Michel lot owner
• Alan Cook lot owner

The Tribunal ordered replacement of the Colourbond fence with equal cost-sharing between the parties, rejecting the applicant's claim that the retaining wall was part of the dividing fence and finding the existing fence was not sufficient.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate committee has refused the applicant permission to keep her dog in Lot 1 at the scheme – whether there are circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100, 247

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the body corporate committee resolved to relocate common property plumbing infrastructure at body corporate expense solely to facilitate the installation of a new air conditioner within a lot – whether the committee acted unreasonably – whether the body corporate must recoup the plumber’s fees from the lot owners – whether owners should always be required to meet the cost of changes to common property made solely to facilitate the improvement of their lots. Act, ss 20(1)(b), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 176, 177.

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

CIVIL DISPUTE – statutory duty of owners corporation to maintain common property – duty to maintain common property includes taking steps to prevent common property from falling into disrepair, repairing common property when it is in disrepair, and carrying out repairs of any damage to other property occurring as a result of disrepair in the common property – statutory obligation to carry out repairs within a reasonable time – whether damage to the common property would cause real disruption to the tenant – whether unit owner is entitled to civil remedy where income is affected by damage to unit caused by disrepair of common property – whether a breach of a statutory duty gives rise to a civil remedy – evidence insufficient to found a claim of negligence – statutory remedy awarded pursuant to section 129(1)(d) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Legislation cited: Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 19, 24, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW) s 226 Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 (NSW) s 105

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – where several engineers have mentioned movement of the foundations and questioned whether plumbing leaks and poor drainage might be contributing – where the applicant submitted a motion to a general meeting proposing to engage an engineer to conduct further investigations, but the motion failed - whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when deciding against the motion – whether the body corporate must engage someone to identify the cause of cracking and movement in the foundations and investigate plumbing and drainage conditions at the scheme. Act, ss 20, 94(2); 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. 99779 owners corp
• Rockdale One Pty Ltd builder
• Piety THP Pty Ltd party

The Tribunal found that numerous defect items (CP.503, CP.506, CP.507, CP.508, CP.509, CP.511, CP.80, CP.302 and all similar instances) were defective and ordered the respondents to rectify them by work order to be filed within 14 days.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 276(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5.

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

Preliminary issue - Scheme by-laws - Common property - Proper construction of scheme by-law 17 'Repair and Maintenance of Premises' and by-law 19 'Exclusive use' - Whether written consent required for exclusive use - 'Exclusive use property' - Whether by-law 19 confers exclusive use and enjoyment of, or special privileges over part of the common property - Repair and maintenance of premises

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – to require owner to reimburse expenditure previously authorised by the committee – whether valid. Act, ss 94(2), 242; Accommodation Module, s 170

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 applicant’s dogs to reside at the scheme – whether the committee’s decision should be reversed. Act, ss 4(a), 100(5), 179.

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

INTERIM ORDERS – where prospects of final orders are poor – whether to make interim orders Act, s 279

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

• Kevin Lenux lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 88786 owners corp

Both proceedings were dismissed; the tribunal found that Special By-law 1 prohibiting enclosure of the mezzanine level was valid and not harsh, unconscionable or oppressive, and that the owners corporation did not unreasonably refuse to make the modified renovation works by-law.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Common property - Scheme dispute - Alleged breach of scheme by-laws - Serious adverse consequence - Declarations - Orders - Exercise of Tribunal's discretion - Monetary penalty - Resolution of scheme dispute

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

IMPROVEMENT – where owner in a two-lot scheme seeks approval from other owner to make improvement to exclusive use area - whether approval for the improvement should be given – whether body corporate acted unreasonably. Act, s94; Small Scheme Module, s112

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE; REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate failed to maintain utility infrastructure forming common property – whether such failure caused damage to the applicant’s property – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in denying the applicant’s claim for the replacement of purportedly damaged property Act, ss 20, 94(2), 100(5), 270(3), 280 and 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

• Virginia Louise Osborne lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 13516 owners corp

The respondent was found to have breached its duties to maintain common property (electrical infrastructure and asbestos-contaminated cabinet) but the applicant succeeded in recovering only $4,752.00 for a damaged marble table and 50% of costs, with claims for loss of rental income and other expenses dismissed.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has contravened the scheme’s by-laws Act, ss 59, 161, 168, 169; 180(7); 270(3)

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE – where there is evidence past owners intended to divide the common property for the exclusive use of each of the two lots but no exclusive use by-law was ever recorded – where the respondent made improvements within what he believed to be his exclusive use area seemingly without body corporate approval – whether each lot should be given the exclusive use of half the common property – whether the respondent should remove his improvements. Act, ss 35(1), 62(2)&(3)(a), 65(1), 170(1), 179; Standard Module, ss 187, 193; Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, s 30(7D)-(7E).

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

EGM PROCEDURES - Chairperson to have available for inspection a list of the names of the persons who are entitled to vote. COUNTING OF VOTES- entitlement to request a poll. COMMITTEE SPENDING – where spending involves payment of insurance premium. RATIFICATION - circumstances where spending can be subsequently ratified by a general meeting. Act, ss 47, 73, 77 Schedule 2, Part 2

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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – whether circumstances constitute an ‘emergency’; MAINTENANCE. Act, ss 94(2); Accommodation Module, ss 152(2), 153(1), 161(2), 162(1), 163, 170(1)

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

• The Owners of Strata Plan No 97315 owners corp
• Icon Co (NSW) Pty Ltd builder

Application for leave to appeal from the primary judge's decision adopting the referee's report regarding defective sunshade installations was dismissed with costs, as the application did not raise an issue of principle, question of public importance, or reasonably clear injustice.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the committee acted reasonably in refusing permission for applicant’s animal as required under by-laws – whether approval should be given for the animal. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate has refused to reconsider the entry and exit access conditions it imposed on the applicant’s pet approval – 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.

Strata titles scheme - Scheme dispute - Specified scheme function - Authority of strata manager - Statutory construction - Strata management contract - Authority to perform scheme function - Whether manager authorised to perform a specified scheme function - Functions of council of the strata company - Nature of relationship between strata company and strata manager

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

LAND LAW — Strata title — Termination of strata scheme — Where termination orders sought not unanimous — Where there are existing debts owed by owners corporation to an unsecured lender — Whether registered mortgagees ought be paid first from proceeds of sale if termination orders made — Whether collective sale pursuant to Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Act is more appropriate in the circumstances

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where a general meeting voted to change the opening hours of an automatic gate that allows vehicles to enter the car park – where the applicant proposed alternative opening hours that would better suit the business operations of his tenant but his motion failed – where the applicant argues that the body corporate acted unreasonably and failed to properly substantiate its claims in its explanatory note – whether the opening hours proposed by the applicant or the opening hours formerly in effect at the scheme should be implemented on an interim basis while the application is decided. Act, ss 94(2), 279(1).

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondents have parked vehicles on common property in breach of the by-laws - whether a trailer is a vehicle. Act, ss 59, 182-188.

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

COMMITTEE ELECTION – whether votes cast by corporate nominees were validly rejected – whether vote cast by representative under power of attorney was validly rejected. Standard Module, s101

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION / COMMITTEE MOTION / REASONABLENESS – where the scheme’s by-laws require approval from the body corporate to change external colours of any building located on a lot – where the applicant sought permission from the body corporate to change certain external colours but approval was refused – whether the body corporate has acted unreasonably. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, ss 116

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

ACCESS TO RECORDS – where the applicant seeks a copies of records Act, ss 15, 205 Schedule 6. COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS Standard Module, ss 68, 69, 204, 205, 231, 233.

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

MAINTENANCE – whether window awnings require maintenance - whether the body corporate is responsible for the work – whether the awnings can be repaired, replaced, or removed. Act, s152; Standard Module, ss 172, 173, 180, 186

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

APPEALS – Adequacy of reasons LAND LAW – Strata title – By-laws - Interpretation of by-law – Whether by-law is an “instrument” for the purposes of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) WORDS AND PHRASES – “Instrument”

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