Decisions table

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must engage a project manager to oversee the remediation of the rooftop waterproof membrane. Act, ss 94(2); Accommodation Module, s 170(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.

ACCESS TO A LOT – whether body corporate is required to compensate owner for inability to use part of the lot whilst works authorised by the body corporate are performed. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 156, 163; Standard Module, ss 52, 189

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

BY-LAW – A by-law only allows curtains to be installed where they have backings of a colour and design approved by the body corporate. The respondents hung sheer curtains with no backings and the applicant seeks an order that they must be replaced with curtains with a light-coloured backing.

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

DISMISSAL – ADJUDICATORS POWERS – ECONOMIC LOSS –CONSENT ORDERS The applicant lot owners allege the respondent body corporate has failed to maintain common property by failing to rectify building defects, and that the applicants have thereby suffered property damage and economic loss. The applicants seek orders that the body corporate repair the defects and remedy the applicants economic losses. The parties agree that the maintenance liability issue is so complicated that it is not suitable to be decided in this jurisdiction, and note that the dispute is also factually related to a proceeding already before a court. The parties note that an adjudicator lacks power to make the requested maintenance order to the extent the cost of repairs exceeds the monetary limit for an adjudicator’s order, and contend that an adjudicator also lacks power to make the requested order for economic loss. The questions for determination are: whether an adjudicator has power to order relief for economic loss; whether in any event it is appropriate to dismiss the application on the basis that the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, and if so; whether to make the order dismissing the application by consent. Act, s 276; 270(1)(b); 276(5), 281

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

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether the respondent must relocate an air conditioning condenser and remove a hot water service that were installed on common property without body corporate approval. Act, s 184; Commercial Module, s 134.

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 an interim order is warranted Act, s279

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.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; GENERAL MEETING MOTION; REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when refusing to pass a motion to permit the applicant to erect awnings over parking spaces on common property; whether the motion should be deemed to have passed. Act, s 94(2); Commercial Module, s 134.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted to retrain the respondent lot owner from acting on motions allegedly passed at a general meeting of the body corporate. Act, s 279

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO LOT – where the respondents have removed internal kitchen walls from their lot BY-LAWS -Where a by-law requires body corporate approval for structural alterations, and the body corporate approval not obtained EASEMENTS OF SUPPORT RES JUDICATA– whether same matter has been finally decided Act, s 163, s 279(1). Standard Module, s 180(2)(b) Land Title Act 1994 s115N

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE; MAINTENANCE Act, ss 94(2), 152, 270(1)(b), 281; Standard Module, ss 162(2), 171(2), 180, 211(3)

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

INSURANCE – whether an owner has failed to pay their share of body corporate insurance. Two-lot Schemes Module, ss 47-59

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

MEETING PROCEDURES – whether vote passed outside committee meeting is valid – whether AGM held outside of legislative timeframe is valid. Commercial Module, ss32, 33, 40

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

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT; BY-LAW – whether the respondent breached a by-law by removing carpet and installing stone polymer composite flooring in her lot without body corporate approval; whether she must obtain the approval of the body corporate or remove the new flooring and reinstate carpet. Act, s 59; Land Title Act 1994, s 115L(3).

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5) and 279

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.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – The body corporate resolved by ordinary resolution to replace the roof. The applicant says the resolution should be deemed void because the new roof was an improvement requiring authorisation by special resolution, the contractor was not licensed for the work when submitting the quotation, the quotation was not sufficiently detailed, the contractor was not reputable, the motion authorised an “engagement” where a written contract was required, and the meeting was inquorate. Act, s 101B(3); Standard Module, ss 45, 58(6), 99, 100, 172(1)(a), 180(1), 186.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 5403 owners corp
• Sargents Developments Pty Ltd lot owner
• Ian Douglas Allen lot owner
• M K Murphie Holdings Pty Ltd lot owner
• Patience Laws lot owner
• Lorenz Pau Julien Trouillet lot owner
• Cameron McTaggart lot owner
• Andrew Pilcher Wines lot owner
• Nathan David Keevers lot owner
• Stephen Goerner lot owner
• Michelle Madeline Phibbs lot owner
• A McCoy lot owner

The application to reallocate unit entitlements among 24 lots was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the valuations of the lots in accordance with accepted valuation principles, a threshold requirement for such applications.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where a general meeting motion gave owners a choice between three quotations for new balustrades, but the quotations differed with respect to the spacing of the balusters; where the existing balustrades are timber but the new will be aluminium; whether the quotations should all have offered balusters with the same spacing; whether the new balustrades are an improvement to common property requiring authorisation by special resolution; whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing the successful motion until these questions can be answered. Act, ss 10(2)(b), 279(1); Standard Module, ss 173, 180(2)(a)(i), 186.

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

• Kristen Nimmons lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 10441 owners corp

The costs application of the respondent to vary the costs order and obtain costs of the notice of appeal was dismissed, with the panel finding insufficient special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

INTERIM ORDER – whether warranted - where committee has refused to reconsider access conditions it imposed on the applicant’s pet approval. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the applicant sought approval to install exterior window awnings – where the motion did not pass – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably. Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, s 187

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

LAND LAW – Community Land Development Act 1989 (NSW) – Community Land Development Act 1989 (NSW) – creation of by-laws for restricted use – interpretation of by-laws – effectiveness of grant of by-law made by strata scheme on subdivision of strata lot – whether particular common property the subject of the grant. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – referral of adjudication proceedings commenced under the Community Land Management Act 1989 (NSW) to the Tribunal – permissibility of including in those referre

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20548 owners corp
• Mount Street 4 Pty Ltd aft Mount Street 4 Unit Trust party
• Keith Anthony Bond lot owner
• Taunton10 Pty Ltd lot owner

Taunton10 Pty Ltd was joined as third respondent to the strata renewal proceedings pursuant to section 181(6)(b) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW), and costs of the motion were reserved.

MANTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OF BODY CORPORATE– where applicant claims cost of repairing damage in the amount of $66,722.61 allegedly resulting from water leaks that it claims were the responsibility of the body corporate -where applicant also claims loss of rent in the amount of $50,370.00 DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION- where adjudicator is satisfied the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 270(1)(b), 276(5)

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

JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether there is a ‘dispute’ in circumstances where applicant, respondent body corporate and Affected Persons are in agreement on the orders sought – whether final orders should be made. Act, ss 4, 171, 227, 238(1)(b), 270(1)(b), 276

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.

PROPERTY DAMAGE; MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate removed shutters from the applicant’s lot in preparation for repairs to the waterproof membrane on his patio, allegedly damaging his property in the process; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant for repairs, replace his damaged property, carry out further waterproofing work to his patio, and reimburse his conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 239(1)(c) & (4)(a), 280; Standard Module, ss 180(2)(a)(iii), 211(2)-(3).

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

IMPROVEMENT – where in a 2-lot scheme an owner seeks approval to install a fence to exclusive use area – where other owner refuses consent – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether approval should be granted. PET BY-LAW – where owner challenges validity of pet by-law – whether by-law is inconsistent with the Act – whether the by-law should be removed. Act, s94, 169B, ; Two-lot Schemes Module, s45

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

MAINTENANCE – where hot water pipes require replacement – where hot water pipes are common property – where applicant argues body corporate must administer, manage and control hot water pipes DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY - where body corporate resolved to decommission the common property hot water system and pipes - where applicant argues decommission of hot water system and pipes is a disposal of common property IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where applicant argues that installation of a hot water system on common property is a disposal of common property REASONABLENESS – where applicant argues decommission of hot water system breaches the duty to act reasonably Act, ss 20, 94, 152, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 174, 178

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.

• Easy Trades Australia Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 3844 owners corp

The appeal by the builder against the first instance decision awarding the owners corporation $61,708.68 for defective works (including a concrete staircase and brickwork) was dismissed, with the Appeal Panel confirming the Senior Member's findings on defects, rectification methodology, and rejection of the builder's set-off claim.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – Where a recent general meeting resolved to: increase the relevant limit for major spending for the purpose of installing solar panels and related infrastructure on the common property, authorise expenditure of $440,000 on the solar project, engage a company to consult on these works, and enter into a power purchase agreement that would include a licence over part of the common property. Where the applicant argues: the major spending limit should not have been increased, additional quotations should have been obtained, no details of the proposed works on common property were provided to owners, the proposed engagement of the consultant was out of date, and all relevant details of the power purchase agreement and licence were not provided. Whether the motions should be declared void. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 125, 163, 176.

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

• Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 32396 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's decision to decline to extend time for bringing recovery proceedings for water damage more than two years after the loss occurred was upheld.

ACCESS TO A LOT – where the body corporate has issued a notice of entry seeking access to the respondents’ lot and where the respondents have refused access – whether orders are warranted. Act, s 163; Standard Module, s 180

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 – where hot water pipes require replacement – where hot water pipes are common property – where applicant argues body corporate must maintain hot water pipes DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY - where body corporate resolved to decommission the common property hot water system and pipes - where applicant argues decommission of hot water system and pipes is a disposal of common property REASONABLENESS – where applicant argues decommission of hot water system breaches the duty to act reasonably Act, ss 20, 94, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 174, 178

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.

COMMITTEE DECISION – REASONABLENESS – The applicant lot owner required and received committee approval to install CCTV system on their lot. The applicant later sought and was denied approval to move the cameras to a different location on the lot. The applicant’s use of CCTV had previously raised privacy concerns for neighbours. The committee denied approval to move the cameras due to privacy concerns, but did not seek to negotiate suitable conditions of approval with the applicant. Should committee approval should be deemed to be given? Act, s 100(5)

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

• Alison Loise Smith lot owner
• Grant Darren Smith lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 43094 owners corp

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed; the original orders requiring the Smiths to remove unauthorised works (pergola, benches, and window) and restore the common property were upheld, with extended compliance timeframes.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93804 owners corp
• M Services & Maintenance Pty Ltd contractor

The respondent's application for a further extension of time to comply with work orders made on 11 September 2019 was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $500,000 as compensation for the uncompleted rectification works.

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate has an obligation to maintain roofing membranes that are not common property – whether the body corporate has met that obligation – whether the obligation includes reinstatement of soil and vegetation that was removed ACCESS TO A LOT – whether the body corporate’s entry notice was issued for a valid purpose. Act, s 163; Accommodation Module, s 170.

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

NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – where the respondents have smoked in their exclusive use courtyard and occupier of neighbouring lot has experienced smoke drift and odour – whether the respondents have caused a hazard or unreasonable interference to others in breach of the Act. s167 Act.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant says the committee was not authorised or otherwise acted unreasonably in passing resolutions to undertake works - whether interim orders stopping implementation of the resolutions is warranted – whether interim orders requiring the body corporate provide copies of records is warranted. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 44, 162, 221.

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

COMMITTEE COMPOSITION - Eligibility to be Voting Member of Committee- where member of committee receives payment for conducting maintenance of common property under a contract of service. COMMON PROPERTY – whether reasonable to use part of indoor common property area for a caretakers office Act, ss 15, 94, 276 Accommodation Module, ss 11 Villanella [[2017] QBCCMCmr 248](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2017/248.html "View Case") Workpac v Rossato & Ors [2021] HCA 23 CFME Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [[2022] HCA 1](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2022/1.html "View Case") Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [[2001] HCA 44](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/44.html "View Case")

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

JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether adjudicator has power to make orders for lost rental income associated with maintenance works undertaken by body corporate. REASONABLENESS – whether committee for body corporate acted reasonably in making decisions related to maintenance works and providing body corporate records. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 276, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

SMOKING – whether the respondent is smoking on scheme land and the applicant is regularly exposed to it; whether the respondent may only smoke outside the scheme. Act, s 167(2); Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, s 112.

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

• Judith Gates lot owner
• Paul Carpenter lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 5165 owners corp

The respondent's costs application was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the interim application.