Decisions table

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – The applicants’ lot and property were damaged by water ingress from their balconies, and the absence of waterproof membranes upon the balconies may have been to blame. The balconies may have been built without membranes as permitted at the time of their construction. Whether the body corporate failed to meet its obligation to maintain roofing membranes in good condition and must repair the applicants’ property. Act, s 24(2); Accommodation Module, ss 170(2)(a)(iii), 201(3).

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

• Brendan Campbell lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 88807 owners corp

Application dismissed; the applicant failed to establish that the owners corporation breached its strict duty of maintenance and repair or that the alleged loss of rent was a reasonably foreseeable result of any breach.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim order is warranted. Act, ss 279, 94(2), 100(5)

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent lot owner is breaching the parking by-law – whether the respondent’s partner is an occupier or invitee. Act, ss 94, 182-186

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – whether the committee made decisions about restricted issues when it made decisions concerning security access fobs. Accommodation Module, s 44

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions proposing restrictions to access to parts of common property required a motion without dissent because they had the effect of disposing of, leasing, or licensing parts of common property or granting exclusive or special rights to groups of lot owners – whether body corporate acted unreasonably in passing the motions. Act, ss 94, 152, 154, 170; Accommodation Module, s 106

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the body corporate approved improvement works undertaken by the owners of 2 lots – whether those motions required a resolution without dissent - whether the body corporate decided not to pass motions submitted by the applicant about gas infrastructure and the maintenance of palm trees - whether those motions should be deemed passed. Act, ss 94, 270; Accommodation Module, ss 174, 182, 184

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether to order that an administrator be appointed. Act, s 301

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.

INTERIM ORDER – whether the body corporate should be prevented from acting upon general meeting resolutions for works pending final orders because of alleged technical deficiencies or unreasonable decisions by the committee in setting the agenda. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 152, 163.

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

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT; REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate refused approval for an alteration to a load-bearing wall within a lot despite engineering advice that it could be done without adverse structural consequences; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably; whether body corporate approval should be deemed to have been given. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 94(2), 100(5), 169(2)(b)(i), 180(7), 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, s 63(6).

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

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION – where tenant made application to Cairns Regional Council to approve Material Change of Use under town planning scheme to legitimise their business which had been operating for several years – where majority of owners in body corporate consent to the MCU application PROMOTION FUND- where monies deposited in promotion fund for purpose of obtaining professional advice regarding termination or “separation” of Community Title Scheme – whether monies dealt with in accordance with Commercial Module MAINTENANCE – where scheme is registered under a building format plan- maintenance obligations of the body corporate. Act ss 238, 247, 276, Commercial Module ss 30, 32, 117, 119, 127

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No. SP54026 owners corp
• Kastri Aev Pty Ltd lot owner

The appeal panel found the respondent lot owner was successful in the appeal proceedings, made no order as to costs of the appeal, and noted the effect of section 104 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) in favour of the respondent.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where an owner sought body corporate approval to install air-conditioning units on common property – where the motion was defeated – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether opposition to a motion proposing exclusive use of the area was unreasonable in the circumstances. Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, s187

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate passed a motion to repair the roof at a cost exceeding the major spending limit, but only presented owners with a single quotation; whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing the motion prior to final orders. Act, ss 279(1), 281; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 170(1).

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate is acting unreasonably and contrary to the community management statement by withholding approval for proposed development on the applicant’s lot, including the removal of surrounding vegetation. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 118.

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

INTERIM – 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.

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed – whether any other orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 270, 287, 288, 301, 318; Small Schemes Module, ss 117, 120, 125

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

Appeal allowed in part: quarantine order made to levy all lot owners other than the applicant in proportion to unit entitlements for costs of rectification works; appeal otherwise dismissed and leave to appeal refused on other grounds.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 82089 owners corp
• Omaya Holding Pty Ltd developer
• Arinson Pty Ltd contractor
• Omaya Investments Pty Ltd party
• BSM Holdings Pty Ltd party
• Integrated Design Group Pty Ltd consultant
• Bernie Cohen & Associates Pty Ltd trading as Essential Certifiers consultant

Summary dismissal application dismissed; strike-out application upheld with leave to replead; application to withdraw admissions dismissed; amendment made to correct obvious error in list response.

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the committee resolved to lock the foyer door to the scheme – whether the committee had the authority to make that decision. Act, ss 94, 100; Accommodation Module, s 44

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 employ an owner – whether previous resolutions affecting the position had been complied with – whether the motion conflicted with previous resolutions – whether the motion is valid. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 101(2), 242; Standard Module, ss 88, 116

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

• Raysons Constructions Pty Limited builder
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 87003 owners corp

The Appeal Panel upheld Raysons Constructions' appeal, set aside the Tribunal's orders in favour of The Owners, and ordered The Owners to pay Raysons Constructions' costs of both the appeal and the Tribunal proceedings on the ordinary basis, declining to award indemnity costs despite Calderbank offers.

IMPROVEMENTS TO EXCLUSIVE USE COMMON PROPERTY \- where improvement (light fitting) made by owner \- where another improvement (cantilevered umbrella structure) was made several years ago before transfer to the current owner, whether body corporate approval for the improvements was ever sought. Section 37A \_Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (\_BUGTA) REASONABLENESS – obligation of body corporate to act reasonably. Sections 27(4) & 79 BUGTA COMPLIANCE WITH BY- LAWS – SMOKING - whether respondent has contravened by-law 17.3 by smoking in his exclusive use courtyard Section 30(5), 77, 78 BUGTA

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

BY-LAW – where the respondent commenced significant renovation works on her lot – where the body corporate recorded a new by-law relating to works on lots and common property – whether the by-law is valid – whether the respondent required approval for the work – whether the respondent is in breach of the by-law. Act, ss 94, 169, 180, 182-188

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

• Jade Y Hsueh lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61321 owners corp

The owners corporation was ordered to rectify water ingress and related defects at Lot 5 within three months and to pay the applicant $11,504 for mould treatment costs and floor damage, but the application was otherwise dismissed including claims for lost rental income, screen door replacement, and declaration regarding levy arrears.

Survey strata plan - Scheme dispute - Financial management of strata company - Administrative fund - Levy contribution on owners - Amounts to be raised for payment into administrative fund - Strata manager - Strata management fees - Strata scheme expenses - By-laws - Unit entitlement - Common property - Exemption from paying contribution - Whether by-law requiring all lot owners to contribute towards the strata management's fees is invalid - Whether by-law unfairly prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory - Whether by-law oppressive or unreasonable - Whether contribution levied excessive - Tribunal proceedings - Statutory discretion to make orders to resolve dispute or proceeding

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where defects on common property allowed water ingress to a lot, damaging ceilings; whether the body corporate must repair the common property and ceilings. Act, s 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 162(2), 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where defects on common property allowed water ingress to a lot, damaging window frames; whether the body corporate must repair the common property and window frames. Act, s 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 162(2), 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

IMPROVEMENT – where owner sought approval to install a blind on his balcony – where body corporate refused consent – whether by-laws required consent to be obtained – whether body corporate acted reasonably. Act, s94(2); Standard Module, s187

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. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – 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, ss 94(1), 100(5), 279

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

REASONABLENESS – whether motion proposing changes to the exclusive use by-laws of the scheme, requiring resolution without dissent failed to pass because of opposition that was unreasonable Act, ss 62, 170, 171, Schedule 5

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94784 owners corp
• Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd developer
• Mirvac Constructions Pty Ltd builder
• Daniel Russell consultant

The court refused to make a personal costs order against the plaintiff's solicitor Daniel Russell, finding that although steps could have been taken more expeditiously to engage with experts, the delay was not caused by serious neglect, incompetence, misconduct or improper conduct on his part.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by not providing retrospective approval for the installation of a fence on common property or the scheme boundary Act, ss 94(1) and (2), 100(5) and 152(1); Standard Module, s 180(1)

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

REASONABLENESS – where a lot owner sought approval to install whirlybirds on common property for the benefit of their lot, whether committee acted reasonably or made a legally unreasonable decision when it decided to refuse to approve the whirlybirds. 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.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent or his associates are parking on common property in breach of the by-laws – whether the respondent has signage and advertising on his lot in breach of the by-laws – whether orders to stop this conduct are warranted – whether the body corporate can tow a vehicle. Act, ss 94, 163A, 192-188

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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION - where body corporate resolved to carry out works to common property – where owner challenges reasonableness of the decision and the type of resolution required for approval – whether decision should be invalidated. Act, s94(2); Small Scheme Module, s105

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

MAINTENANCE IN A BUILDING FORMAT PLAN Responsibility for maintenance of balustrades and waterproofing membranes. Maintenance obligations of bodies corporate / Maintenance obligations of lot owners Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 279 Standard Module, s 180, s 211. National Construction Code, Volume 2

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the applicant suffered damage to the lot due to a lack of maintenance of common property pipes and waterproofing; where the applicant seeks an amount greater than an adjudicator may order. MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate should undertake maintenance works to pipes, a shower in a lot, garden bed waterproofing, and inspect pipes for blockages. Act, ss 20, 270, 281; Standard Module, s 180.

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

LAND LAW – Easements – Right of Way – Full and free right for every person entitled to an estate or interest in the dominant tenement, and every person authorised by them, to go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes, with or without vehicles, to and from the dominant tenement - Whether the defendant (servient owner) is infringing the right of the plaintiff (dominant owner) to enjoy the easement according to its terms and free of substantial interference by the servient owner, by ref

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

REASONABLESS – where the applicant constructed a shed on common property in the scheme’s basement carpark – where the body corporate passed a motion at a general meeting for the shed to be removed but the applicant submits the decision is unreasonable – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94

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.

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO EXCLUSIVE USE AREA – where the respondents fixed a storage rack to the ceiling of their exclusive use parking space and store various items there; where the exclusive use by-law says the area “may only be used for the parking of a registered motor vehicle”; whether the storage rack and other items must be removed. Standard Module, ss 193(3), 228(3).

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

• Helen Mary Dart lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan 71849 owners corp

The appeal was allowed on questions of law; the Tribunal's findings on the number of common property items requiring repair were based on no evidence, the Tribunal failed to consider whether the limitation period applied to a work order application, and the Tribunal applied a wrong legal principle regarding limitation periods for work orders, resulting in remittal to the Tribunal for redetermination.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the applicant disputes 6 general meeting resolutions – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in passing the motions – whether the motions are otherwise invalid. Act, s 94

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

MAINTENANCE – whether respondents have failed to comply with maintenance obligations and have failed to rectify fire safety defects, -whether orders for work to be undertaken are warranted. Act, ss 163, 167; Accommodation Module, ss 201, 202

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

MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate resolved to paint the entire building with the costs to come from the sinking fund – where the applicant says maintenance of the balconies, patios and exclusive use areas are owners’ responsibilities – whether the painting and remedial works are required to maintain the elements of the building in a structurally sound condition – whether the body corporate can validly incur the cost of the work – whether the sinking fund budget is valid. Act s94(2); Accommodation Module ss 150(3), 170(2), 182(2)&(3), 200

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the body corporate is responsible for repairing a leaking shower within a lot, and relevelling a floor forming a boundary of the lot, in a building that has experienced subsidence and building movement. Act, s 281(1)(a); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1)&(2)(b), 201(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

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

ACCESS TO A LOT – whether the body corporate may erect scaffolding on a lot balcony during structural repairs to a slab on a higher level. Act, s 163; Standard Module, s 180(2)(b)(ii)-(iii).

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

BY-LAWS – where the respondents have installed hard flooring in their lot – whether the respondents have complied with the hard flooring by-laws. Act, ss 180 to 186

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