Decisions table

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 91174 trading as Owners Corporation Throsby Street owners corp
• RPF Building Pty Limited builder
• RPF Throsby Pty Limited developer

The Court answered a separate question in the negative, determining that the plaintiff cannot continue proceedings in respect of building work certified as completed in accordance with the Deed, and ordered the defendants' costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

LAND LAW — strata title — strata renewal plan for redevelopment — Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) — one dissenting owner not a party to the proceedings — strata renewal plan given effect

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

• White House Developments Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 70276 owners corp

The appeal was allowed in part: the owners corporation was ordered to arrange repairs to Lot 14 according to specified scope of works within prescribed timeframes, and the applicant must provide reasonable access for such work; the appeal was otherwise dismissed regarding claims for loss of rent and basement wall repairs.

APPEAL- whether an application under s 149(1)(c) of the Strata Titles Management Act must be brought within the time of 28 days provided for by r 23(3)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Rules

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94197 owners corp
• Secretary of the Department of Customer Service government
• Robert Touma builder

The proceedings were dismissed by consent but the first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, excluding costs related to expert reports and a notice of motion, because the plaintiff's judicial review had a very good chance of success due to the first defendant's failure to provide notice before issuing the second Building Work Rectification Order and the third BWRO amounted to acquiescence to the plaintiff's concerns.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 12185 owners corp
• Lisa Brown lot owner

The appeal by the Owners Corporation against the Tribunal's decision to approve a common property rights by-law for air conditioning installation was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

COSTS – certificate under Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) sought – unsuccessful respondent’s submissions had led lower court into error – unsuccessful respondent sought to defend erroneous decision on appeal – inappropriate to grant certificate

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

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review for denial of procedural fairness – review on the grounds of irrelevant and relevant considerations – remedies – discretionary factors – delay – plaintiff is the Owners Corporation of a multi-residential apartment building erected in suburban Sydney – the second defendant is the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”) – the first defendant is a Council constituted under the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Council”), and the developer of the complex

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

UNIT TITLES – meetings – Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 – omission of special purpose fund budget from notice of annual general meeting – the common law of meetings – argument that an entire meeting is void due to the omission of one resolution from the meeting notice and from the meeting agenda – the effect of the Unit Titles (Management) (Meeting Agenda) Guidelines made under the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 – whether entire annual general meeting is void for irregularity under section 129(1)(e)(i) – meaning of ‘irregularity’ – considerations in decision-making under section 129(1)(e)(i) - meeting not void Legislation cited: Legislation Act 2001 ss 146, 156 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 41, 72, 75, 129(1)(e)(i), Schedule 3, ss 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, Dictionary Subordinate Legislation cited: Unit Titles (Management) (Meeting Agenda) Guidelines 2020 Unit Titles (Management) (Meeting Agenda) Guidelines 2023

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 95242 owners corp
• Karimbla Properties (No 42) Pty Limited developer
• Karimbla Constructions Services (NSW) Pty Ltd contractor
• Guardian Protection Services (Aust) Pty Ltd contractor
• Plumb Group Pty Limited contractor
• Saba Bros. Tiling Pty Ltd contractor

The court fixed costs thrown away at $25,000 for the first and second defendants and $3,000 each for the third, fourth and fifth defendants, or alternatively referred the question to a costs assessor on a costs-follow-the-event basis.

COSTS – party/party – general rule that costs follow event – multiple discrete issues – whether decision on costs should be deferred pending reference of remaining issues COSTS – party/party – bases of quantification – indemnity basis – where offer of compromise made

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

APPEAL — question of law — Civil and Administrative Tribunal — proceedings for breach of statutory warranties implied by Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) in residential building work — six year warranty period — Owners Corporation commenced proceedings four months after expiry of six year period — whether proceeding commenced in time — Senior Member found Owners Corporation commenced within further six month period authorised by s 18E(1)(e) because breaches only became apparent in last six months of

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

LAND LAW — strata title — strata plan — proposed variations to strata renewal plan for redevelopment — whether proposed variation is of a minor nature that does not affect the plan in any substantial way — s 182 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) — whether proposed variation to the proposed sale price of a lot is “just and equitable in all the circumstances” — cl 36 of the Strata Schemes Development Regulation 2016 (NSW)

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

• Ayten Akdogan, Khaled Mourad, Jillian Dolby, Bronwyn Whale, Albert Ayoub and Ameen Ayoub lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 55665 owners corp

The respondent's costs application was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the appeal, which had been withdrawn by the applicants due to lack of standing.

LAND LAW – Strata title – Construction of poorly drafted by-law – Heading of by-law at least part of context in which terms to be construed whether or not part of by-law and whether or not by-law regarded legislative in character – By-law in question does not encompass approval of relevant works – By-law could not authorise strata committee to approve works that are not minor renovations LAND LAW – Strata title – No reason why special resolution referred to in s 108(2) authorising change to comm

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 87639 owners corp
• Karimbla Properties (No4) Pty Ltd developer
• Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd builder
• Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd (NSW) builder

The defendants' motion for security for costs was dismissed, with the court finding no reason to believe the owners corporation would be unable to pay an adverse costs order and declining to order security as a matter of discretion.

COSTS-respondent’s application for 50% of its costs of appeal-appeal from decision by the Tribunal in proceedings referred to Tribunal by an adjudicator in which the Tribunal has no power to award costs- appeal also concerned with some matters falling within the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal-appeal unsuccessful on all matters except in relation to a costs order made by the Tribunal -special circumstances for making a costs order required to be established as provided for in s 60 of the C

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in revoking approval to make improvements to common property on the roof. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 86, 97, 98, 116, 128, 180

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

REGULATION MODULE – where the community management statement states that the Accommodation Module applies to this scheme – whether the circumstances that must exist for the Accommodation Module to apply to this scheme actually exist – whether a new community management statement should be recorded stating that the Standard Module applies. Act, s 21(3); Accommodation Module s 3, Standard Module s 3.

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

GENERAL MEETING – whether circumstances exist to warrant shortening the notice period given to owners for a general meeting. Act, ss 227(2), 243A, 276; Accommodation Module, s 81

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

COMMITTEE SPENDING – where purported spending by the committee exceeded the relevant limit for major spending- circumstances where spending beyond relevant limit for committee spending can be subsequently ratified by a general meeting Accommodation Module ss 125, 127, 163.

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

REASONABLENESS – of committee refusal under by-law of owner’s motion proposing change of use for lot Act, ss 94, 100(5)

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

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT/COMMON PROPERTY; PROPERTY DAMAGE. Act, ss 184, 281; Standard Module, ss 187, 211, 212, 213

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the damage to paint and plasterboard on the ceiling of a lot was caused by the body corporate’s failure to maintain common property. Act, ss 297, 298; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 87639 owners corp
• Karimbla Properties (No4) Pty Ltd developer
• Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd builder
• Karimbla Construction Services (NSW) Pty Ltd builder

The court granted the Owners Corporation leave to amend its Technology and Construction List Statement to reflect significantly expanded evidence of systemic building defects, with amendments taking effect only from the date of the application to amend on 11 November 2024.

Building and Property

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

APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Whether leave required LAND LAW — Easements — Substantial interference with easements — dominant owner proposes extended width of driveway on their own land — proposal that drivers from servient tenement will cross onto dominant owner’s land — alleged that the development application contains certain deficiencies— servient owner’s consent required for making of development application pursuant to s 23(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NS

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether the dispute is within jurisdiction of department adjudicator – whether the committee acted unreasonably in resolving to withhold the caretaker’s remuneration for alleged non-performance of duties. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 229(2); Accommodation Module, s 142

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 76907 owners corp
• Sydney Metro government

Leave was granted to the Applicant to adduce expert evidence on conditions that the Respondent's costs thrown away be paid on an indemnity basis, with no further extensions of time permitted except in exceptional circumstances.

COMMITTEE MOTION – PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicants’ car was damaged by an intruder – where a security roller door was not working at the time – where the committee refused to pay the applicants’ expenses – whether the body corporate was liable for the property damage – whether a committee decision should be overturned. Act, ss 94, 100, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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.

MAINTENANCE – An electrical cable on common property is damaged, cutting power to the applicant’s lot. The applicant says the cable is common property and the body corporate must repair it. The body corporate disagrees because the cable connects to a switchboard within the applicant’s lot, which it says is a device that only provides a utility service to the lot. The applicant seeks orders to compel the body corporate to repair the cable. Act, ss 20, 94(1)(a), 177(1); Standard Module, ss 180(1) & (4)(a), 192(2), 211(5); Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14D(b).

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

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – where the original owner signed a reallocation agreement swapping the exclusive use car spaces of two lots that it owned at the time – where the original owner notified the body corporate of the reallocation – where the body corporate failed to record a new community management statement to give effect to the reallocation – where both lots were subsequently sold – whether the time for the body corporate to record a new statement should be extended. Act, ss 62(4), 63, 171(1), 174(1), 176

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 owners corp
• Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd builder
• Aqualand North Sydney Lavender Development Pty Ltd developer

The Owners Corporation's application for a freezing order against the Developer was granted to prevent disposal of assets up to $10.6 million, as the court found there was a danger that a judgment would be unsatisfied given the Developer's pattern of distributing proceeds from unit sales and likelihood of selling the four remaining residential units.

MAINTENANCE – where termites entered a structure on a lot in a standard format plan directly from common property, whether the body corporate breached its statutory duty to maintain; PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether body corporate’s breach of a statutory duty to maintain caused damage to property – where there are multiple causes of property damage, whether apportionment of the costs of repairs is appropriate. Act, ss 94, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

NUISANCE – ORDERS The applicant body corporate complains that the respondent lot owner has for some years caused nuisance by persistently sending communications to the committee and other lot owners about disputed issues. The body corporate seeks orders limiting the respondent’s communications with other owners and absolving the committee from an obligation to respond to certain types of his communications. The questions are: whether such conduct can be characterised as unlawful nuisance; and if so, whether the requested orders are in appropriate form to be made. COSTS The applicant seeks an order for reimbursement by the respondent of its application costs because the preceding conciliation session was ended on the basis that the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate in conciliation. The question is whether a costs order is warranted in the circumstances. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997: ss 167, 280 Proximity One [[2016] QBCCMCmr 416](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2016/416.html "View Case") Drift Palm Cove [[2021] QBCCMCmr 149](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2021/149.html "View Case")

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

BY-LAWS – The respondent is accused of parking a caravan on common property and keeping dogs at the scheme without body corporate consent in contravention of the by-laws. The applicant seeks the removal of the caravan and dogs. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 184(2), 287, 288(1); Accommodation Module, s 58B.

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges another resident is making noise in breach of the by-laws – where the body corporate did not issue a by-law contravention notice to the other resident – whether the body corporate must take by-law enforcement action against the resident. Act, ss 94, 182-186; Small Schemes Module, s 22

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION; DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – The former owner of the applicant’s lot erected a fence and shed on common property without proper authority. A general meeting resolution required that all structures be removed from the common property unless rent is paid. The applicant argues the body corporate acted unreasonably and asks that the motion be declared invalid. Act, ss 35(1), 36(1), 62(2), 94, 100(5), 105, 106; Standard Module, ss 98(1)(a)(ii), 184(2).

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether the respondent must remove items from common property which are alleged to breach the scheme’s by-laws until a final determination is made. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, s 177.

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 respondent’s dog to reside at the scheme, where residents have medical conditions; ASSISTANCE DOG – definition; right to keep on lot or common property. Act, ss 100(5); 169B, 181; Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE; MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is responsible for termite damage sustained to the applicant’s lot in 2014 and must reimburse her costs of repairs. Act, ss 36(1), 94(1)(a), 94(2), 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201(3); Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

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

EXPENDITURE; REASONABLENESS – The body corporate resolved to increase the relevant limits for committee and major spending in relation to works to remove combustible materials from the common property. The committee then engaged contractors after considering only a single quotation. Part of the work resulted in a reduction of natural light in some lots. The questions to resolve are whether the body corporate acted unreasonably, breached the code of conduct for committee members, or should have considered more than one quotation. 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.

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate committee resolved to commence legal proceedings - whether interim order is warranted. Act, s279(1)

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

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION – where lot owners made application to Sunshine Coast Regional Council to approve Material Change of Use to redevelop their lots. RESTRICTED ISSUE FOR COMMITTEE - whether body corporate committee is able to consent to lodgement of development application for material change of use. GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – validity of resolution permitting lot owners to carry out works in accordance with development approval – whether works will involve a disposition of common property

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

RETURN OF BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the former body corporate manager fulfilled its obligation to hand over body corporate property Commercial Module, ss 171 & 181

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where owner’s air-conditioner installed on common property was not properly authorised – whether air-conditioner should be removed. Act, s94; Standard Module, s187

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where owner sought retrospective approval for an air-conditioner installed on common property subject to conditions including relocation of the condenser – whether the motion at general meeting was incorrectly ruled out of order – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably – whether the motion should be deemed carried. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, ss 98, 187

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

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate committee resolved to commence legal proceedings - whether interim order is warranted. Act, s279(1)

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

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