Decisions table

Whether a body corporate or a body corporate committee acted reasonably, whether poll voting at a general meeting on a motion to be decided by ordinary resolution can be restricted; whether there is a dispute to be resolved. Act, ss 94, 100, 109, 276.

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

Whether there is a dispute to be resolved about a contravention of the Act or the scheme’s community management statement or about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or the CMS; whether utility infrastructure is common property of the principal scheme; whether a subsidiary scheme body corporate is responsible to maintain utility infrastructure in good condition Act, ss 20, 276, 281; Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020, s 180; Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020, s 201.

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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – where the applicant proposed an amendment to the by-laws – where the motion failed – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in not passing the motion – whether the outcome sought is still relevant or required. Act, ss 94, 270(1)(e)

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

Costs; Building and Property

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 acting upon an ordinary resolution to install a roof access hatch on common property until it can be decided whether the resolution is contrary to an earlier interim order or whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when passing the resolution. Act, ss 94(2), 279(1); Standard Module, s 186.

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

POWERS OF AN ADJUDICATOR – whether adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief.

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.

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.

Whether the body corporate has acted to enforce its by-laws; whether the body corporate has enforced its by-laws in the way provided under the Act; whether the respondent has contravened a by-law; whether the body corporate has acted reasonably enforcing its by-laws. Act, ss 94, 100, 182.

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

• Samir Shousha lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 2657 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal in an amount to be agreed or assessed.

APPEALS – from findings of fact – primary judge assessed credibility and reliability of two witnesses – findings not expressed to be based on demeanour – applicable test for appellate intervention – whether primary judge gave sufficient weight to combined effect of relevant circumstances EVIDENCE – tendency evidence – whether evidence relating to a separate building project was significantly probative of the issue concerning the alleged builder’s role in the building project the subject of the p

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

Whether an order should be made 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.

Whether there is good reason to waive non-compliance with a statutory time limit; whether the committee had power to make a decision; whether the body corporate had power to charge an owner for the supply of electricity and water to the owner’s lot; whether a by-law is invalid. Act, 100, 150, 180, 196, 242; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 152, 153, 200.

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

• Roger Harris lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 34056 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused; the Tribunal's decision dismissing the application to invalidate Motion 16 regarding parking on common property was upheld on the basis that the appellant failed to establish any non-compliance with the Strata Schemes Management Act or Regulations in relation to the meetings.

Building and Property

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

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT STATEMENT – where the body corporate sought to move building control provisions from the schedule C by-laws to an architectural code in schedule D of the community management statement – where the passage and failure of separate motions left the body corporate without building controls – whether the body corporate should be required to reinstate former building control by-laws in a new schedule D. Act, ss 62, 94, 181

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.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279

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

• Andrew Bruce lot owner
• Alice Barclay lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 98803 owners corp

The Tribunal declared that the applicants may keep their French Bulldog Peach on their lot, finding that the Owners Corporation unreasonably withheld approval by incorrectly interpreting the by-law as permitting only one animal per lot and failing to consider whether the animal would unreasonably interfere with other occupants' use and enjoyment of their properties.

INTERIM ORDER – BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE – whether to make interim order allowing applicant to being a dog to the scheme. Act, s 100(5)

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

POWER OF ENTRY – where the entry door to a lot was damaged – where the respondent replaced the door – whether the respondent must provide certification that the new door is compliant – if no certification is provided, whether the respondent must provide access to enable the door to be inspected – if the new door is not compliant, whether the respondent must provide access for work to replace the door – whether the respondent is liable for the cost of the door and accessing the lot. Act, ss 163, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

EGM MOTION – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when resolving to reimburse an owner the entire cost of replacing a bedroom floor that was thought to have suffered water damage due to defects in the common property. Act, ss 36(1), 94(1), 281; Standard Module, s 180(1).

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.

INTERIM ORDER – whether to make interim order. Act, s 276

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

MAINTENANCE – in building format plan – whether body corporate has failed to meet their obligations- obligation of body corporate to maintain common property Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281; Standard Module, s 180. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case")[[2006] NSWSC 1157)](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")[[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case") Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D’Ora [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2007/300.html "View Case")[[2007] QDC 300.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2007/300.html "View Case")

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

IMPROVEMENT TO EXCLUSIVE USE AREA – whether a free-standing storage locker would be an improvement to an exclusive use area requiring body corporate consent; whether body corporate consent should be deemed to have been given; whether the installation of a storage locker is permissible on common property subject to an exclusive use by-law granted for the purpose of car parking. Act, ss 35, 170(1); Accommodation Module, s 193(3).

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

COMMITTEE – GENERAL MEETING – ADMINISTRATOR – where 2020 and 2021 AGMs failed for form a valid committee – where 2021 AGM held more than 3 months after end of financial year – where applicant alleges 2021 AGM, its resolutions and its committee election are thereby invalid – whether to invalidate AGM, motions and election – where applicant seeks administrator appointment – whether to appoint administrator. Act, ss 278, 301; Accommodation Module, ss 73, 83

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

EMERGENCY – GENERAL MEETING – NOTICE PERIOD – where fire door requires repairs – where committee proposes to call extraordinary general meeting to consider repairs quotations on less than statutory 21 days’ notice and give only 7 days’ notice – whether to declare that EGM will not be invalid if it is called on at least 7 days’ notice Act, s 243A

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

• Lynne Maree Worral lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 43357 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and the first instance tribunal's orders requiring cost-sharing of roof terrace rectification work in proportion to respective areas of responsibility were upheld.

Whether the use of electronic voting invalidated a general meeting; whether a proposal to engage a body corporate manager involved spending above the relevant for major spending; whether a motion reviewing each insurance policy held by the body corporate was contrary to the Act. Act, s 100; Accommodation Module, ss 235, 236; Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008, ss 42, 74, 84, 150, 175; Justice Legislation (COVID-19 Emergency Response—Community Titles Schemes and Other Matters) Regulation 2020, ss 5, 8.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279

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

Whether the body corporate maintained common property in good condition; whether the body corporate will maintain common property in good condition if proposed work is carried out; whether the proposed spending is above the relevant limits for committee spending and major spending; whether the spending is required to meet an emergency. Act, ss 152, 243A; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163, 170

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

Donation to GoFundMe Campaign to object to development application – whether within body corporate’s statutory functions. Act, s 94; 2008 Standard Module, ss 49, 53, 139, 146, 148, 167, 169

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

EMERGENCY – GENERAL MEETING – NOTICE PERIOD – where scheme lift inoperable due to flooding and requires repairs – where committee proposes to call extraordinary general meeting to consider repairs quotation on less than statutory 21 days’ notice and give only 7 days’ notice – whether to declare that EGM will not be invalid if it is called on at least 7 days’ notice Act, s 243A

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether an owner should be prevented from rebuilding his demolished lot until questions are resolved about whether the work has been properly authorised by resolution without dissent, or whether irreversible changes will be made to utility infrastructure that will affect the supply of utility services to other lots. Act, ss 279(1); Standard Module, ss 84, 105(3), 184(2)(a), 187.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where applicant owner received committee approval to keep a dog, subject to requirement that exit and entry of the dog from the scheme land be via the car park driveway ramp – where applicant says pedestrian use of the driveway is dangerous and therefore the requirement is unreasonable – whether to grant interim order to exempt applicants from requirement. Act, s 279

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

APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM ORDER – whether the body corporate should be prevented from putting into effect a resolution from an annual general meeting to terminate the caretaking and management agreement held by a company of which the applicants are directors – whether there is jurisdiction to determine the matter – whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances require an order to be made – whether there are serious questions of law and the balance of convenience favours the case advanced by the applicants. Act, ss 94(2), 149(B), 276(1), 279(1).

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to install ducting on common property was submitted to a general meeting – where the motion was ultimately withdrawn - whether it would have been unreasonable to pass the motion – whether orders are warranted. Act, s 94(2)

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

REASONABLENESS – where committee refused lot owners’ application to bring a dog onto the scheme – where committee applied house rule against allowing pets – where applicants alleges committee decision was unreasonable – whether to deem approval given. Act, s 100(5)

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

By-laws – whether breached; body corporate’s obligation to enforce reasonably. Act, ss 59, 66, 94, 182, 184.

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

• Geoffrey Grasso lot owner
• Dan Muresan lot owner
• Silvino Wilfredo lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 52399 owners corp
• Anthony Power party
• Ravi Ranade party
• Romero Maris Claudia Trebilcock party
• Anne Power party
• Raj Calisa party

The respondent's application for costs following the withdrawal of the appellants' appeal was dismissed as the Appeal Panel found no special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – where the applicant believed he had voted against a motion before he left a general meeting – where vote count after he left excluded his vote – whether the motion passed. Act, ss 94(2), 100(1), 242, 270(1)(e); Standard Module 2020, ss 104-6

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

ADMINISTRATOR – where scheme lacks a compliant committee. Act, s 278, 301

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 70871 owners corp
• Michael Turek lot owner
• Louise Turek lot owner

The Appeal Panel dismissed the costs application and ordered each party to bear its own costs of the appeal proceedings, finding no special circumstances warranted departure from the default rule under section 60 of the NCAT Act.

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

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed, with the Tribunal finding special circumstances warranted a costs order but declining indemnity costs because the Calderbank letter did not expressly foreshadow an application for indemnity costs.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 85292 owners corp
• JD Projects Pty Ltd contractor

The parties agreed on the substantive outcome with a consent work order made, but the Tribunal determined that each party must pay their own costs, finding no special circumstances warranted a costs order and that Rule 38 did not apply as the amount in dispute was less than $30,000.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a committee resolution to submit a motion to an annual general meeting, proposing to exclude an owner from committee membership, should be declared void; where the AGM has already been held and the motion ruled out of order. Act, s 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, s 11.

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

• Wayne William Stocker lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 6622 owners corp
• Peter Hartley lot owner

The application was dismissed because the applicant lacked standing to seek an order under s 132 of the Strata Schemes Management Act, the retrospective approval by ordinary resolution was valid as the work constituted a minor renovation, and there was insufficient grounds to remove the respondent from the strata committee.

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 36965 owners corp
• Jennifer Alexander lot owner

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's application for costs of the appeal, finding no special circumstances warranted an award of costs against the Owners Corporation despite the appeal being lodged out of time.

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – application 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.