Decisions table

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.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — builder retained to repair defects caused by original builder — whether proceedings for breach of statutory warranty commenced within 7 years after completion of work — s18E, Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — date of completion of work — s3B, Home Building Act — legislative history – distinction between completion and practical completion – meaning of “completion” — interaction between s3B(2) and (3). REFEREE — separate question — whether to adopt report — error of law i

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether an annual general meeting should be postponed because the applicant may have wished to add further motions to the agenda if he had been given access to the body corporate’s records when requested, or because his explanatory notes were not circulated to owners. Act, ss 276(4), 279(1), 301; Standard Module, ss 86(6), 87(3)(e), 90(1)(a), 97, 98(1)(a)(i), 232(1).

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – where a water supply system was installed on the applicant’s exclusive use area – whether the body corporate should relocate the system Act, ss 36(3), 66(1)(d), 68(1), 170, 177. Schedule 6 Dictionary; Land Title Act 1994, ss 115O, 115P;

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

INTERIM ORDER – where applicant is seeking final orders regarding the use of a certain chemical at the scheme as a hazard – where there are allegations of special circumstances and urgency about the chemical – whether an interim order is appropriate pending the final determination of the dispute. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 167, 279

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a committee decision to revoke consent for the caretaker’s delegate to perform caretaking duties was reasonable – JURISDICTION – whether a department adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Act, ss 94(2); 100; 149B; 229 Accommodation Module, s142

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate committee has replaced the ordinary power outlets in the scheme’s basesment with lockable ones – where the applicant has been denied permission to use the locked outlets – where the applicant wants the body corporate to reinstate owners’ access to the outlets – whether there are urgent circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case Act, ss 94(2), 100, 279(1); Standard Module, ss 52, 184

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether the committee acted unreasonably imposing conditions of approval for an air conditioner in a lot; whether the conditions should be amended or omitted. BY-LAWS – whether a by-law requiring body corporate approval to install air conditioning in a lot is invalid because the committee uses it in an oppressive and unreasonable manner; whether it should be replaced with an alternative by-law proposed by the applicants. Act, ss 4(a), 62(3)(a), 94(2), 100(5), 169(1)(b)(i)-(ii), 180(7); Accommodation Module, s 170(4)(a)(ii)(E).

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant’s motion seeking approval for the colour change to Lot 6’s patio doors was not carried by the committee – where the committee has sought entry into Lot 6 to paint/stain the patio doors to match the other exterior doors, windows and louvres at the scheme – whether there are urgent circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case Act, ss 94(2), 100, 279

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether a pot plant is an improvement to common property – whether body corporate consent is required to place pot plants on common property – whether the body corporate unreasonably withheld consent. 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.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS - Validity of, where it is alleged a conflict of interest existed, but was not declared; where those resolutions have been rescinded in general meeting Act, s 279; Commercial Module, ss 30, 35

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

BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT – where body corporate alleges owners of a lot are breaching the by-laws – whether the body corporate has complied with the mandatory legislative processes required to enforce by-laws – whether it appears adjudicator is without jurisdiction. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 181-188, 270(1)(a)

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.

EGM RESOLUTIONS – whether resolutions are valid IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – requirement for approval by special resolution ACQUISITIONS FOR BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS- requirement for approval by special resolution Act, ss 97, 318 Accommodation Module ss 163, 176, 179

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.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether a body corporate must repair damage to a building format plan lot caused by movement of the building’s foundations, including repainting the interior and replacing the carpet. Act, ss 280, 281; Small Schemes Module, s 99; Land Title Act 1994, s 48C(1).

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 appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's decision to transfer proceedings to the District Court was upheld, despite the appellant's arguments regarding jurisdictional limitations.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where an unsuccessful motion to record a new community management statement would have reconfigured two neighbouring lots without affecting surrounding lots or common property; whether the motion required a resolution without dissent; whether it should be deemed to have passed. Act, ss 62, 65, 108.

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

• BlueHouseCoffs Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61419 owners corp
• Karin Puels lot owner

BlueHouseCoffs Pty Ltd was joined as applicant and Karin Puels removed; the owners corporation was restrained for three months from obtaining further legal services without general meeting approval; applications for production of documents were dismissed; the application was otherwise dismissed.

INSURANCE – where an owner paid insurance excess – whether it was unreasonable for the body corporate to charge that excess – whether the excess should be reimbursed Act, ss94(2) & 100(5); Accommodation Module, s193(3)

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has contravened the scheme’s by-laws – whether the respondent has obstructed the use of common property by storing furniture on common property. Act, ss 59, 161, 168, 169; Standard Module, s 212

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – whether body corporate or owner is responsible for replacing balcony tiles. Act, ss 246, 281, 297, 312; Standard Module, ss 52, 180, 211

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

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate can charge committee members a fee for copies of records – whether the body corporate can question the purpose of a committee member’s request for access to records. Act, ss 204, 205; Accommodation Module, ss 221, 222

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.

BY-LAWS – where the applicant claims his neighbours’ garden contravenes a by-law and their air conditioner breaches body corporate policy; whether the body corporate must enforce the by-laws. Act, ss 94(1)(b), 182.

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

• BNK Café Restaurant Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 33676 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appellant's application for costs of the appeal, finding no special circumstances warranted a departure from the general rule that each party bear its own costs.

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

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.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the body corporate resolved to replace some windows and sliding doors on lots and undertake waterproofing – whether the body corporate is responsible for the work – whether motions about the work are valid. Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a dog should be permitted at the scheme. Act, s 270(1)(e).

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.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS – whether a committee resolution conflicted with a general meeting resolution - whether a committee resolution was within the power of the committee – whether the decisions were reasonable - whether committee members had a conflict of interest. Act, s 100, Standard Module, ss 52, 66

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 84716 owners corp
• Delmont Purcell lot owner

The lot owner was found to have breached notices to comply with by-laws 5 and 7, and ordered to pay a penalty of $1,320 (8 penalty units for by-law 5 breach and 4 penalty units for by-law 7 breach).

EMERGENCY – where plumbing failure causing property damage – where quotation is above the limit for committee spending – whether to order that committee spending is authorised. Act, s 243A; Standard Module, s 172(1)

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

• Rebecca Ann Beitzel lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 67504 owners corp
• Richard Christian lot owner
• Heidi Danilewitz lot owner
• Cindy Radomsky lot owner
• Q's Investment (Int) Pty Ltd lot owner
• Harry Haber lot owner
• Jaffa Haber lot owner

The application for orders directing the owners corporation to consent to construction of a swimming pool and to prescribe a common property rights by-law was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish that the owners corporation unreasonably refused consent.

REASONABLENESS– whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing permission for the installation of solar panels on common property – whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, s94(2)

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

INTERIM ORDERS – where lot owner alleges committee decided to reduce the number of access fobs available to him and restrict his access to common property – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(1), 100(5); Accommodation Module, s 44

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in resolving to remove trees on common property. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163

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

• Mei Lan Roberts lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 4393 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's application for costs and ordered each party to pay their own costs of the appeal, finding that rule 38 did not apply and no special circumstances warranting an award of costs existed.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law attaching to a lot giving the owner rights over an identified part of common property in the basement car park failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 279(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5

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

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law attaching to a lot giving the owner rights over an identified part of common property in the basement car park failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 279(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions that purported to direct the applicant’s conduct as committee chairperson were invalid. GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether general meeting minutes that failed to record various statements and procedural motions were not full and accurate and should be amended. BY-LAWS – whether a communication by-law is invalid because some terms are not defined, it conflicts with the body corporate’s contracts with service providers, it is at odds with the Act, or it diminishes owners’ ability to raise legitimate issues with the body corporate. Act, ss 59(2), 94(1), 95(1), 100(5), 180(1); Accommodation Module, ss 76, 83(1), 107.

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

UNIT TITLES – granting of special privilege to the exclusive use of common property – seeking order that the Corporation unreasonably refused to make special privilege rules – operation of special privilege granted terminated by legislation – Corporation decision not to renew special privilege – whether Corporation acted unreasonably in opposing motions to grant special privilege – the operation of section 129(1) and section 129(2) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 – finding that it was not unreasonable for the Corporation to oppose motions – whether section 129(1)(d) provides wide-ranging powers to the ACAT to order payment of money but only up to the particular limit of $1,000 – application is dismissed Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 18 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 20, 30, 31, 112A, 112B, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Republication 13 s 167 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Republication 8 s 22 Units Titles Legislation Amendment Act 2020 s 112 Subordinate Legislation cited: Territory Plan 2008 – 11.1 Parking and Vehicular Access General Code, ss 3.1.5, 3.2.5, Sch 1 – Residential ones Territory Plan 2008 Republication 168 – 3.4 Multi Unit Housing Development Code

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether resolutions purportedly passed at a general meeting were valid – whether the motions should have been ruled out of order. Act, ss 62, 94, 100; Commercial Module, ss 30, 56

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.

MANTENANCE; DEBT – where the body corporate repaired two water leaks within a lot that it claims were the owners’ responsibility; whether the owners must reimburse the body corporate’s expenditure on repairs, water, and conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 20(b)(i), 229A(3)&(7), 280; Standard Module, ss 180(1), 211(5), 212.

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where a motion to reimburse the owner of Lot 2 for works he carried out at the scheme was considered at a recent extraordinary general meeting and passed – where the applicant submits the body corporate’s decision to pass the motion was unlawful and unreasonable – whether there are urgent circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case Act, ss 94(2), 279; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 170, 177

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

The appeal was allowed; the order dismissing the claim for damages for loss of rent was upheld as time-barred, but the issues of whether the lot owner is entitled to a work order and damages other than for loss of rent were remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where the committee refused permission for the applicants to keep a pet dog in the scheme – whether body corporate failed to act reasonably - whether approval should be given. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 276

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