Decisions table

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions involving proposed spending above the major spending limit required two quotes 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, s 163

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where permission to keep two dogs in a lot was refused by the body corporate committee pursuant to the scheme’s pet by-law; where the applicant intends to relocate to the scheme soon; whether the committee acted unreasonably when refusing to permit the dogs at the scheme; whether the dogs should be permitted on an interim basis until the application can be determined. Act, ss 100(5), 279(1).

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

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

The appeal against a costs order awarded to the respondent in connection with a dismissed application for interim relief was dismissed, with the Appeal Panel finding the Tribunal's reasons for awarding costs adequate and the discretion to award costs not having miscarried.

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. 10717 owners corp
• Darryl William Mantell lot owner
• Diane Louise Mantell lot owner

The Tribunal dismissed the owners corporation's application to remove a bench from common property but granted the lot owners' application for a common property rights by-law relating to the subject area, finding the owners corporation's refusal of the by-law was unreasonable.

• Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd t/as Central Sydney Realty contractor
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 64807 owners corp

The Court of Appeal dismissed the caretaker's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction to terminate the caretaker agreement under s 72 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

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

• Noela Hunt lot owner
• Brian Hunt lot owner
• Cheryl Hunt lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 1158/84199 owners corp

The Tribunal dismissed both applications finding the Owners Corporation did not unreasonably refuse consent to install air-conditioning condenser units on the balcony returns as the proposed works were not compliant with Special By-law 5 and the by-law itself was not unjust.

• Gary Mark Colman lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No. 61131 owners corp

The Lot owner was ordered to pay the costs of The Owners Strata Plan No. 61131 on an ordinary basis (not indemnity basis) as the unsuccessful party in the substantive proceedings.

• Rosa Camilleri and Sandra Peer lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 4987 owners corp

The application was dismissed as the tribunal was not satisfied that the owners corporation unreasonably refused consent to the lot owners' proposed structural renovation works involving removal of load bearing walls in unit 14.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp
• Mr Cho party

The application for recusal of the judge was refused as the allegations of bias and private communications were found to be completely unfounded and lacking any logical connection between asserted facts and feared deviation from impartial decision-making.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp

The motion to set aside orders made on 17 July 2023 was dismissed; Campbell J held that UCPR 36.15 does not permit review of orders for error in merits and that the proper avenue to challenge the earlier decision is the Court of Appeal.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp
• Joe Cho party

Documents filed in contravention of a stay order were removed from the court file and returned to the applicant, and a notice to produce was set aside.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp

The plaintiff was ordered not to take any further steps in the proceedings without complying with prior orders or obtaining leave, and was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis due to multiple unsuccessful applications and procedural breaches.

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION; Home Building – breach of statutory warranties – where work involved the conversion to residential use of a commercial space – scope of contract -effect of implied warranties.

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

LAND LAW---Strata scheme---s 237 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)---Appointment of compulsory strata manager---Where compulsory strata manger already appointed---Whether circumstances justify a further appointment of compulsory strata manager---Whether circumstances justify extension of the existing order.

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondents have contravened the scheme’s by-laws by storing items on common property – whether the respondents have interfered or permitted interference with utility services or utility infrastructure – whether the respondents have used the common property in a way that causes a hazard. Act, ss 166, 167, 182 and 184

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when choosing to paint the common property roof “basalt” rather than “shale grey”, where the former is expected to make the applicant’s lot hotter. Act, s 94(1)(a) & (2).

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

BY-LAWS – NUISANCE – whether the respondents have contravened the by-laws and legislation by creating excessive noise and by spraying water on other occupiers using common property using a water apparatus attached to their lot or common property; whether the preliminary procedure for by-law contravention disputes has been followed. Act, ss 167, 183, 184, 186

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

• Canterbury-Bankstown Council government
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 71808 owners corp

The respondent was convicted of three counts of contempt for failing to comply with consent orders requiring provision of fire safety certificates and upgrade strategy, and ordered to pay fines totalling $11,250 plus ongoing monthly penalties of $2,000 per charge until compliance.

VALIDITY OF AGM, APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES Act, ss 227, 228, 276, 284, 301

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 and its directions have failed to comply with the request. Standard Module, s 235

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

• Spiros Nikitopoulos lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 52311 owners corp

The Tribunal invalidated motions 3 and 4 from the EGM on 12 September 2022 dissolving and re-electing the Strata Committee, declared Special by-laws 4 and 5 invalid, but dismissed applications for work orders, parking enforcement, and compulsory appointment of a strata managing agent.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether a general meeting and its decisions were invalid because inadequate notice or insufficient information were given; whether preventative maintenance of lot balconies is an “improvement” requiring authorisation by special resolution; whether the body corporate must offer owners cheaper alternatives. MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – whether the body corporate can replace balcony glazing as part of work to remediate balcony waterproofing. Accommodation Module, s 170(2).

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

NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – where the respondent smokes on her lot and the applicant who resides in the neighbouring lot experiences smoke drift and odour – whether the respondent is causing a nuisance, a hazard, or an unreasonable interference in breach of the Act Act, ss 167

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the body corporate resolved to raise a special levy to fund solicitors acting in legal proceedings – whether the motion was valid. BUGT Act, s 47, schedule 2, part 2, s 11(1)

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 Tribunal found multiple contraventions of interim orders restraining Ms Roberts from carrying out unauthorised renovation works in her lot and directed that proceedings be listed for hearing to determine whether civil penalties should be imposed and in what amount.

MAINTENANCE – whether by-law makes body corporate responsible for repairs and maintenance of a retaining wall in an exclusive-use courtyard – whether timber sleepers in the retaining wall have deteriorated and require replacing. Act, ss 59, 94(1)

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

PARKING BY-LAWS – whether respondent is parking his vehicle on common property in breach of the by-laws. Act, ss 94(1)(b), 183

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 91016 owners corp
• Upright Builders Pty Ltd builder
• Bayone Projects Pty Ltd developer
• City of Ryde Council government
• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 97600 party

The Court answered yes to the separate question that the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 applies to the encroachment of the walkway and stairs onto Nancarrow Avenue, but qualified the answer to clarify that the Court's power is limited by existing legislative prohibitions on what the roads authority can lawfully do.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to record a new community management statement to change contribution schedule lot entitlements failed to achieve a resolution without dissent – whether effect should be given to the motion -whether an adjudicator can make the order sought. Act, ss 47A, Schedule 5, item 10

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

MAINTENANCE – where roofing membrane is on common property allocated under an exclusive use by-law – whether body corporate is responsible for maintenance; whether body corporate has failed to maintain membrane in good condition; whether body corporate is responsible for repairing water damage to owner’s lot; whether body corporate is required to reimburse owner for cost of expert reports. Act, s281; Standard Module, s192(2) \&s192(3)

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, ss 276, 278

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

Whether motion authorising improvements to common property and disposal of common property, requiring resolution without dissent failed to pass because of opposition that was unreasonable, or was effectively passed. Act, ss 94(2), 276(1)(b); Standard Module, ss 184, 187 Ainsworth v Albrecht [[2016] HCA 40](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/40.html "View Case")

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether the body corporate should be prevented from acting on a resolution to install new fencing and retaining walls pending final orders. Act, ss 94, 152, 159, 160, 161, 311; Standard Module, ss 173, 180

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

IMPROVEMENT TO A LOT – whether a lot owner must sign a work agreement with the body corporate before altering a load-bearing wall within her lot; whether she must obtain written confirmation from the local government that the alteration would not breach the scheme’s development approval; whether there is a prohibition on interference with load-bearing walls. Act, ss 35(1), 94, 100(5), 165; Standard Module, ss 180(2)(b)(iii); Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the committee voted down a motion to permit an owner to alter a load-bearing wall within her lot; whether body corporate approval was required; whether the committee acted unreasonably in withholding approval. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 100(5).

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

FINANCIAL YEAR – whether an order should be made to change the body corporate’s financial year. Act, s 283.

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

PETS – REASONABLENESS – where applicant is a lot occupier and lessee who wishes to keep a pet – where by-law requires approval to keep a pet – where Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 separately requires lessor approval for lessee to keep a pet – where committee refused approval including because the owner had not approved the pet – whether approval under the RTRA Act is a prerequisite for a body corporate giving approval under a by-law Act, s 100(5)

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

• Raymond Ross lot owner
• Sarab Chami lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61667 owners corp

The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the failed application to reinstate appeal proceedings in the fixed sum of $6,245.

TOWING – where a vehicle appears to have been abandoned on common property – whether the body corporate can tow the vehicle. Act, s 94(2), 100(5)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the body corporate has billed an owner for costs allegedly resulting from a water leak from the owner’s defective bathroom renovations, citing conditions of approval under a by-law and various provisions of the Accommodation Module; whether the application relates to a debt dispute and is beyond an adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 180(6), 229A; Accommodation Module, ss 201(3), 202.

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.

ENFORCEMENT OF BY-LAWS – where the respondent has installed blinds on the balcony of her lot without the approval of the body corporate – where the body corporate alleges the respondent’s blinds are in breach of the scheme’s by-laws – whether the respondent should be required to remove the blinds Act, ss 59, 94, 100, 182, 294; Accommodation Module, s 7

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

Change of body corporate’s financial year Act, ss 276, 283

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

BY-LAWS – whether pet by-laws are invalid – whether body corporate acting reasonably in deciding to refuse lot owner’s request for approval to keep a dog at his lot. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 169, 180(7)

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

B\_Y-\_LAWS – whether the conduct of the respondent is in breach of the by-laws – NUISANCE – whether the respondent’s conduct is causing a nuisance or unreasonable interference with the use of other lots and common property – whether the condition of the respondent’s lot constitutes a hazard. Act, ss 167, 182-188; Accommodation Module, s 201

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

GENERAL MEETING – whether a general meeting was valid – whether motions, general business, committee appointments and the minutes were valid. Standard Module, ss 48-50, 86, 93(2), 107(6), 117

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 – COSTS – whether the applicant should be reimbursed the application fee. Act, s 205; Accommodation Module, ss 220, 222

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

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp

The plaintiff's summons was struck out as irregularly commenced and blending impermissible criminal and civil allegations; the plaintiff was given 28 days to replead as a statement of claim; prayers to strike out the defendant's notice of appearance were refused; and the application for suppression of the plaintiff's identity was refused.