Decisions table

COMMITTEE MOTIONS – where the applicants installed a concrete path on common property – where the committee passed resolutions about the path – whether orders about the resolutions are warranted. 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.

CONTRIBUTIONS – where the body corporate has incorrectly raised funds for the maintenance of lots that it is not responsible for – whether the body corporate should be authorised to refund those funds. Accommodation Module, ss 152, 170, 201

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

INSURANCE IN BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – requirement for each lot owner to contribute Act, s 280(2); Standard Module, ss 197, 198, 201, 206.

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where a lot has suffered water damage thought to be caused by ingress through the front door, an external wall separating the lot from an adjacent common property garden bed, and an incorrectly installed downpipe spreader and irregular apron flashing on the roof – whether the body corporate must repair the common property and the lot. Act, ss 20, 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 13031 owners corp
• Ricky Harasty lot owner

The Costs Respondent (Harasty) was ordered to pay 50% of the Costs Applicant's (The Owners) costs of the appeal due to special circumstances including late withdrawal of serious misleading conduct allegations and persistence despite prior warning of costs exposure.

INTERIM ORDERS – where committee refused lot owners’ application to bring two dogs onto the scheme – where applicants allege committee decision was unreasonable – whether to grant interim order to allow dogs to be brought onto the scheme pending further or final order. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – where the respondents installed an air conditioning compressor on common property without body corporate approval – where a general meeting resolved that the compressor should be relocated to their exclusive use courtyard - whether the respondents must comply with the resolution. Accommodation Module, ss 79, 177.

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

AGM RESOLUTIONS – whether resolutions approving legal proceedings and payment of legal fees and costs should be declared invalid – whether resolutions involved fraud on the minority of lot owners ADMINISTRATOR – where scheme is in substantial non-compliance – whether administrator should be appointed DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION – ABUSE OF PROCESS – whether application should be dismissed for being vexatious and an abuse of process

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

NUISANCE – BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is causing a nuisance or an unreasonable interference by installing and using security cameras on his lot – whether he has breached the by-laws - whether the cameras should be removed. Act, s 167

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

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES – whether meeting minutes are accurate –COSTS – whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded. Act, s 270, Accommodation Module, s 63

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the body corporate installed speed bumps and other traffic management works at the scheme – where the applicant asserts the improvements are not up to standard and submitted a motion to remedy alleged defects but the motion was not carried – where the applicant is no longer an owner or occupier in the scheme – whether the application should be dismissed Act, ss 238, 239C, 270

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the body corporate committee is making decisions without passing resolutions, notifying owners, or giving them the chance to object – where the committee is paying fees to contractors that are cumulatively above its spending limit in relation to a project that has yet to be approved by owners at a general meeting – whether interim orders should be made to halt these practices pending the final determination of the application. Act, s 279(1); Standard Module, ss 52(1)(d), 55(3), 65, 68(3), 69, 71(2)(b), 72, 73(1), 172(1)(a)&(2), 186(3).

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the applicant installed a fence – where the committee did not approve the fence - whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in not passing the motion – whether the outcome sought is still relevant or required. Act, ss 100(5), 270(1)(e)

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

REASONABLENESS – whether committee decision to refuse an application to keep an animal at the scheme was unreasonable. Act, s 100(5)

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

• Haidi Noor lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 72939 owners corp

Both the owners corporation's application to vary the costs order and the owner's application to vary the costs order were dismissed; the Appeal Panel maintained its original no order as to costs of the appeal decision.

IMPROVEMENTS AND DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondents have demolished the dwelling on Lot 2 and are in the process of constructing a new unit on the lot which will include an additional storey – where the applicants allege the respondents do not have authorisation to carry out this work – whether the orders sought by the applicants are warranted in the circumstances. Act, s 242; Standard Module, s 184

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

BODY CORPORATE RESOLUTION – whether resolution made by body corporate to allow lot owner to purchase common property was a lawful decision of the body corporate – whether procedural requirements for calling a general meeting were met – whether procedural non-compliance was substantial or could give rise to material prejudice – whether motion provided adequate notice and information – whether body corporate was required to execute a deed of transfer to implement a resolution. Act, ss 101(2), 154; Small Scheme Module, ss 22, 37, 41, 103

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, s 283

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

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING – whether to extend the time for holding an annual general meeting. Act, s 104; Standard Module, s 83.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. \- 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, s 279. Accommodation Module, ss 40, 162.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. \- 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, s 279. Accommodation Module, ss 40, 162.

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

TRANSFER FEE – where the applicant caretaking service contractor was transferred the caretaking and letting rights in 2007 – where the caretaking engagement and letting agent authorisation expired in 2021 but the applicant continued to provide the same services on a month-to-month basis until a new long-term contract was executed some five months later – where the applicant transferred the caretaking and letting rights to another contractor in 2022 – whether the applicant’s “initial contract date” was the date the rights were transferred to it in 2007 or the date the latest engagement and authorisation was executed in 2021 – whether the applicant was required to pay a transfer fee to the body corporate – whether the body corporate must reimburse the transfer fee – whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s costs of making this application. Act, s 280(1); Accommodation Module, ss 133(1), 135-137.

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

ACCESS TO A LOT – where the body corporate has issued entry notices seeking access to the respondents’ lot for various purposes – where the respondents have refused access – whether orders for access are required – IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the respondents have installed a shade sail on their balcony– whether the installation is in breach of the by-laws – whether approval required – whether the shade sail should be removed. Act, s 163; Standard Module, ss 180, 187

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

ENTRY TO A LOT – where the body corporate requires access to the lot to perform maintenance obligations – where the owner seeks a security bond as a condition of entry – whether owner has a right to do so – whether owner is obstructing entry. Act, ss 163, 243A

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

• Hadi Noor lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 72939 owners corp

The appeal was allowed; the Tribunal's costs decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination once the primary proceedings have been redetermined.

BYLAWS – whether hard flooring installed by owner meets acoustic requirements of by-law; whether body corporate failed in its duty to enforce the by-law reasonably; whether committee resolution approving the installation was void. Act, ss 94(1)(b), 94(2), 242; Accommodation Module, s44

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where applicants claim animal is a support dog – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in refusing permission for a second dog – whether by-law designating part of the common property as a pet-free zone is oppressive or unreasonable in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 180(7), 181

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where the applicant’s representative sought approval to bring a dog when holidaying in their lot – where approval was refused - whether the committee acted reasonably – what conditions of approval would be appropriate. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

• Danielle Gai Purcell lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 908 owners corp

The Tribunal dismissed applications for costs by both parties and ordered each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings, finding no special circumstances warranted a costs award where the substantive dispute was resolved by consent orders for window repair works and did not proceed to a contested hearing on the merits.

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – where applicant is a lot owner – where applicant requested a copy of the body corporate roll including owners’ email addresses – where body corporate supplied a copy with contact details redacted – whether the body corporate is required to provide an unredacted copy of the roll or all contact details located in the records Act, s 205

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

Common property - General duty of strata company to control and manage the common property for the benefit of all owners - Resolution of scheme dispute - Tribunal proceedings - Discretion of Tribunal to make orders - Declaratory relief - Turns on own facts

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

VALIDITY OF MOTIONS – where motions to carry out repair and replacement works were considered at an extraordinary general meeting and passed – where the applicant challenges the motions and wants them set aside – whether the motions are invalid Standard Module, s 173

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE –Whether lot owner should be forced to remove improvements from common property – Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 159, 185, 276; Standard Module, ss 187; Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

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

COMMITTEE COMPOSITION – whether person elected to committee was a service contractor & became ineligible to hold that position. COSTS – whether application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance; whether costs should be awarded Act, ss 15, 99, 100(4), 152, 270(1)(c), 285; Standard Module, ss 10(2)(a), 44(2)(b), 48, 97, 98, 180

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

BY-LAWS – where by-law provides that no change is to be made to the external appearance of the Lot without permission of the body corporate committee – where respondent installed internal shutters – where committee did not give approval– whether the respondent should be required to remove the shutters. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicants sought approval for alterations – where approval has not been given – whether the by-laws are valid – whether the plans should be approved – whether a committee member has a conflict of interest – whether an amount paid under the by-law should be reimbursed. Act, ss 94, 97, 100, 180, 270; Standard Module, ss 6(b), 58, 66, 86

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether committee resolutions should be prevented from being implemented until their validity is determined. Act, ss 242, 279; Accommodation Module, ss 44(1)(b)

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion proposed exclusive use of common property roof space for the purpose of converting it to a habitable part of the dwelling below – where the motion failed to achieve a resolution without dissent because a neighbouring lot owner voted against it out of concern that it would result in greater noise in his lot or would otherwise be adverse to his interests – whether the owner’s opposition was unreasonable in the circumstances – whether the motion should be given effect. Act, ss 62, 167.

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

• Ellen Marie Abraham lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No. 61419 owners corp

The application to renew proceedings for enforcement of orders requiring the Owners Corporation to allow inspection of strata scheme records was dismissed as the renewal was brought outside the required timeframe and the nature of relief sought was not appropriate for renewal proceedings.

MAINTENANCE – whether body corporate is responsible for repairing termite damage to a lot - whether the failure to pass a motion to undertake repair works should be overturned – whether the body corporate is responsible for the cost of repairing the termite damage. Act, s 94(2); Accommodation Module, s 170

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.

COSTS – whether special circumstances – claim for costs made against the owners corporation which did not participate in the substantive proceedings.

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

• Allan Veney lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 2245 owners corp

The Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Tribunal's orders dispensing with a hearing and awarding costs to the respondent, finding no appealable error in the first instance decision.

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – RETRURN BY FORMER BODY CORPORATE MANAGER - s.235 Standard Module.

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – where a common property lift installed at the inception of the scheme does not meet current regulatory requirements and cannot provide a service to all lots without repeated mechanical failure – where the lift has not been operational for several years – where the applicant lives on the top floor and struggles with the stairs – whether the body corporate must repair the lift. INSURANCE – whether the body corporate must obtain machinery breakdown insurance to cover failure of the lift motor. Act, ss 10(2)(b), 20, 35(1), 152(1); Standard Module, ss 180(1), 184(2)(a); 186, 187, 197.

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

AGM RESOLUTION TO AMEND CARETAKING AND LETTING AGREEMENTS – INCLUSION OF OCCUPATION AUTHORITY FOR COMMON PROPERTY AREAS USED BY THE MANAGER/AGENT TO PERFORM CARETAKING AND LETTING- WHETHER RESOLUTION VALID Act, s 276; Accommodation Module, ss 147, 148.

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

REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate has passed various resolutions which, amongst other things, increase the scheme’s levies and raise special levies – where the applicant disputes the need for the extra levies and wants an administrator appointed to assess the scheme’s financial position – whether the body corporate has failed to act reasonably in passing the disputed resolutions Act, ss 94(2), 100(4), 242, 270, 301

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

• John Hanley Archibald lot owner
• Lynette Archibald lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 50441 owners corp

The Owners Corporation was ordered to pay civil penalties of $1,100 for contravention of orders 4A, 4B, 4C and 4E, and $5,500 for contravention of order 4D, totalling $6,600, to the first applicant for failure to complete specified water remediation works by the contractual deadline of 2 December 2021.

GENERAL MEETING – where chairperson ruled motions out of order – whether owners were given an opportunity to reverse the ruling – whether the chairperson’s conduct was a breach of the code of conduct for committee voting members Act, s101B; Accommodation Module, s88

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

COMMITTEE ELECTION – whether a committee election held in 2021 should be held again to address alleged voting irregularities. BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate must request candidate tallies from the provider of electronic voting software to satisfy an owner’s request for access to those records. Act, s 205.

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