Decisions table

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has contravened the by-laws by running a power cord from his lot to his vehicle parked on common property; by installing a shade sail on common property without body corporate approval; and by installing a fence gate on common property without body corporate approval REASONABLENESS – whether the applicant acted unreasonably by selectively and inconsistently enforcing the by-laws against the respondent and not other owners and occupiers – whether the applicant unreasonably withheld approval for the respondent to install a shade sail on common property – whether the applicant acted unreasonably by requiring the respondent to restore the fence to its original condition but without a gate BIAS – whether the decisions of the committee were impacted by any bias on the part of the chairperson Act, ss 94, 100, 159, 168(2); Standard Module, s 187

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

REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate committee has refused to amend the access condition it imposed on the applicant’s pet approval – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94; 100

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

JURISDICTION – where an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute under the Act, whether an application seeking the recovery of a debt is a debt dispute under the Act, and whether a defence raised by the respondents that the debt is not payable can be determined by an adjudicator REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by not providing the respondents with a further opportunity to repair the ruptured pipe themselves; by not notifying the respondents that it would be proceeding with the repair works; and by purportedly failing to communicate effectively with the respondents – whether the repair costs are unreasonable MAINTENANCE – UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether the respondents can avoid responsibility to maintain a pipe that solely services their lot and is within their lot on the basis that they did not cause damage to the pipe and that they did not originally install the pipe Act, ss 20, 94, 100, 160, 161 and 229A; Standard Module, ss 180, 211 and 212

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 100(5), s 279; Standard Module, ss 168, 172

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

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the applicant sought the approval of the body corporate committee to renovate her two adjoining lots, including by making an opening in a load-bearing wall between them; where the committee refused because it believed it could not permit any change to load-bearing walls nor any interference with the support provided by the wall to lots above; whether the committee acted unreasonably and approval should be deemed to have been given. Act, ss 100(5), 165; Standard Module, ss 58(6)(b), 180(2)(b)(iii); Land Title Act 1994, s 115N; Planning Act 2016, ss 44(3), 48(1)-(2); Planning Regulation 2017, s 21(4), schedules 7 & 8; Building Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a)(ii), 20, 21, schedule 2.

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

BY-LAWS – where lot owner/ occupier has erected a pergola and fence on common property without firstly seeking permission of the body corporate - where body corporate has issued a Notice of Continuing Contravention of a Body Corporate By-law COMMON PROPERTY – where a fence and a pergola/ awning structure have been erected on the common property and no rights of exclusive use have been granted by the body corporate – authorisation required. Act, ss152, 159, 171. Katsikalis v Body Corporate for The Centre [[2009] QCA 77.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2009/77.html "View Case")

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

MEETING NOTICE – whether the body corporate can hold an extraordinary general meeting without 21 days’ notice. Act, s 243A; Commercial Module, s 49

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

• SafeWork NSW government
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 93899 owners corp

The Owners Strata Plan No 93899 was convicted of failing to ensure the workplace was without risks to health and safety after a damaged gate fell and fatally crushed a worker; ordered to pay a fine of $225,000 and prosecution costs of $40,000.

MAINTENANCE – cracking of floor/ ceiling in building format plan – obligation of body corporate to undertake repairs - whether body corporate is responsible for repair of consequential damage to a lot. APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR – Extension of powers. Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281, 301 Standard Module, s 159. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")

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

MAINTENANCE – cracking of floor/ ceiling in building format plan – obligation of body corporate to undertake repairs - whether body corporate is responsible for repair of consequential damage to a lot. APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR – Extension of powers. Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281, 301 Standard Module, s 159. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where a motion to be decided at a forthcoming general meeting will propose amending the caretaking service contractor’s engagement and authorisation to remove the requirement that it owns a lot at the scheme; where the applicants object to the body corporate committee’s explanatory note urging a vote in favour of the motion and seek an order that, if passed, the motion is void; whether to prevent the motion from being implemented before the application is decided. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 279(1); Accommodation Module, ss 76(1)(b)&(5), 80(7), 125.

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

APPEALS (UNIT TITLES) – responsibility of owners corporation to maintain common property – meaning of ‘common property’ – whether a unit’s doors and windows opening onto a unit subsidiary of the unit (in this case, a balcony) are common property – no error in finding the doors and windows are not common property – appeal dismissed Legislation cited: Legislation Act 2001 s 140 Unit Titles Act 2001 ss 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, Dictionary Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 10, 19, 20, 24, 125, 129, Dictionary

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where the applicant sought approval to bring a dog when holidaying in their lot – where approval was refused - whether the committee acted reasonably – whether approval should be given. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 - contract to undertake residential building work– non est factum – purported oral variation to scope of works - waterproofing - failure to comply with Australian Standard and Building Code of Australia BUILDING AND CONSTRUTION – Statutory duty of care under s37 of Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 – waterproofing - failure to comply with Australian Standard and Building Code of Australia

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the body corporate installed steel beams and posts on the applicant’s balcony to support the overhead balcony slab that had been compromised by concrete cancer; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s cost of concealing the steel behind painted fibre cement sheets; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 167, 280, 281; Standard Module, ss 180(1) & (2)(b)(ii), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

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

MAINTENANCE – whether maintenance of a particular window in a body corporate scheme established under a building format plan of subdivision is the responsibility of the body corporate or the applicant lot owner. Act, s 152; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

Owners Corporations; Costs

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 100(5), 279

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

MAINTENANCE; EASEMENT – where the body corporate had a common property water pipe within a lot replaced and the plumber installed the new pipe in a different location; where the body corporate’s expenditure on the work was not properly authorised and the new pipe would obstruct cabinets the applicant hoped to install in his lot; where the applicant claims the committee exceeds its spending limit, fails to keep proper records or provide access to them, and excludes him from correspondence; whether the new water pipe must be returned to the location of the old pipe and the body corporate must audit its statement of accounts. Act, ss 20, 62, 68(1), 70(1)(b) & (2)(b), 94(2), 100(5), 101B(3), 108, 186; Standard Module, ss 45, 172, 176(1), 180(1), 187; Land Title Act 1994, s 115O.

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the body corporate has an obligation to make good termite damage in the lot. MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate has an obligation to replace a missing lock on a garage door. IMPROVEMENTS – where a fence has been installed on common property by a lot owner – whether the installation of the fence amounts to a disposition of common property. Act, ss 170, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 187.

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

REASONABLENESS – where a developer had conditional contracts to purchase 9 of the 12 lots in the scheme and was investigating scheme termination, whether the body corporate was acting reasonably when it decided at a general meeting to pass motions and engage consultants to prepare certain reports and raise levies to fund the reports – whether body corporate was acting reasonably when it decided not to pass certain motions to approve maintenance works to the roof of the building at the scheme. Act, s 94(2)

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether a resolution to authorise a body corporate manager to act for the body corporate was valid Act, s 97

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

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether lot owner made a valid request for records – whether there is any basis for the body corporate not to provide a copy of the requested records; REQUESTED EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING – whether lot owner made a valid request to call an EGM; whether there is any basis for the committee not to call and hold the EGM; MAINTENANCE – whether sewer pipes are in need of maintenance – whether there is a dispute about works to be done; where body corporate carried out pest control to common property, exclusive use areas and internal units – whether lot owners are responsible for costs to internal and exclusive use areas - whether the motion authorising the works and payment should be invalidated. Act, ss 205, 270(3); Standard Module, ss 84-86, 180,192, 228, 231

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 30691 owners corp
• Maryanne Pickard lot owner

The Appeal Panel upheld the appeal and set aside the damages order of $35,990, holding that the two-year limitation period in s 106(6) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 is a substantive limitation that cannot be extended under s 41 of the NCAT Act and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award damages outside that period.

FINANCIAL YEAR– whether the financial year end date for the body corporate should be changed by an adjudicator Act, ss 283 and 321A

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION regarding IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether valid. Act, s 152; Standard Module, ss 180(2)(a)(ii), 186, 187

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

• Bernadette York and Kevin Edwards lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 675 owners corp

The Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appellants' appeal against the Tribunal's decision to reallocate unit entitlements in the strata scheme based on the relative values of lots as at 17 June 2014, increasing the appellants' lot unit entitlements from 60 to 109 and from 24 to 43 respectively.

BY-LAWS – where lot owner has placed a plastic lattice plant trainer on her balcony without firstly seeking permission of the body corporate & body corporate issued a Notice of Continuing Contravention of a Body Corporate By-law REASONABLENESS - Section 94(2) Act - requirement of body corporate to act reasonably-– impact on external appearance - whether the body corporate has acted reasonably. Act, ss 59, 94, 182.

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

REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – strict duty of owners corporation to maintain and repair common property – lost rent claim arising from alleged breach of duty – limitation period in Strata Management Act 2015 (NSW) s 106(5) with (6) – nature of loss - extension of time under Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 41

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

• Michael David Horan lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 68307 owners corp

The appeal was allowed in part; the owners corporation's breach of its duty under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act was established, and damages for loss of rental opportunity were increased from $7,510 to $45,060 for the period July to December 2020, plus electricity charges of $429.26, totalling $46,616.26.

INTERIM ORDER – Application for interim order– whether warranted in circumstances\_.\_ 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 238, 247, 276, 279 MAINTENANCE – where roofing membrane is on common property allocated under an exclusive use by-law – extent of body corporate’s responsible for maintenance where an improvement is made to common property for a lot owner. Act, s281; Standard Module, ss 180, 192(2) & 192(3)

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.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion proposed cleaning and repointing the roof at a cost exceeding the relevant limit for major spending; where the motion was accompanied by only one quotation for that work, and other quotations for variations on the work; whether the motion was void for failure to provide two quotations for the specific work proposed in the motion. Standard Module, s 173(1)-(2).

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether the body corporate should have provided a second quote for works over the major spending limit. MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate can recover maintenance costs from a lot owner. Act, s 229A; Accommodation Module, ss 201, 202.

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the committee engaged a contractor to replace locks with a new registered locking system – whether the committee had the authority to make that decision – whether the previous unregistered locking system should be reinstated. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, ss 52, 172, 173, 186

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.

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94784 owners corp
• Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd developer
• Mirvac Constructions Pty Ltd contractor

Leave granted to plaintiff to rely on supplementary expert reports served late in breach of guillotine order; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs on gross sum basis; solicitor directed to show cause why he should not personally meet the costs order.

LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Contributions by owners – Recovery of unpaid contributions and interest – Unpaid strata levies – Notice of Levy

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 2661 owners corp
• Simone Selkirk lot owner

The appeal was allowed on the question of law whether a mitigation defence is available in answer to a claim for damages under s 106(5), with the court holding that an owners corporation may establish that a lot owner's unreasonable failure to mitigate loss reduces their damages claim.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the common property roof leaked and damaged the applicant’s ceiling; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s expenditure on repairs to the ceiling and replace the ceiling. Act, s 281; Standard Module, s 180(1).

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

• Raysons Constructions Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 87003 owners corp

The appeal was allowed and the orders for the builder to repair defects were set aside; the application was dismissed on the basis that the owners corporation was aware of the defects before the limitation period expired and could not rely on the statutory extension under s18E(1)(e).

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

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.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 89866 owners corp
• John Joseph Zouki lot owner
• Hardy Pty Limited developer
• Kevin Zouki lot owner
• Juliane Lahood party

Indemnity costs were refused; the Court found it was not unreasonable for Hardy Pty Limited to reject the settlement offers made on 18 April 2024 and 23 April 2024, and ordered that Hardy Pty Limited pay the Owners Corporation's costs on a party/party basis only.

GENERAL MEETINGS – validity Act, s94C, Schedule 2, Part 2, s 4(a), Schedule 4, s 7

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – where the body corporate approved works and a special levy to fund those works – where the body corporate deferred the works to review the scope of works – where the body corporate raised the special levy – whether the motions were valid – whether the levies should be refunded. Act, s 242; Standard Module, s 116

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

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING – where the annual general meeting is to be held more than three months after end of financial year – whether to grant permission for the annual general meeting to be held late – whether to declare the annual general meeting will be not be invalid for being held late Accommodation Module s 73

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.