Decisions table

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.

COMMITTEE DECISION – REASONABLNESS – where the committee approved the applicant’s proposal to install a cat net on her lot’s balcony but subject to the condition that it be similar to a balcony screen installed on another lot which was not designed for animal containment – whether the committee acted unreasonably by imposing that condition – whether the applicant ought to have deemed approval to install a cat net on her balcony without that condition EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF LOT – whether there was an unacceptably substantial change to the appearance of a lot which warranted the body corporate refusing permission for an installation Act, ss 94(2) and 100(5)

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

EMERGENCY ORDER\_-\_ APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR whether an administrator should be appointed – who should be appointed, with what powers, and for how long. Act ss 227, 229(3), 243A, 301.

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

MAINTENANCE – where the scheme’s building requires significant remedial works but owners have voted down motions to address the maintenance issues – whether it is unreasonable for the body corporate to decide not to carry out necessary repairs. Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 160, 287, 288; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – MAINTENANCE – where a motion to replace windows in a lot was passed and then rescinded – whether the original motion was valid – whether the rescission motion was valid – whether the body corporate must replace a window in a lot. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 163, 242; Standard Module, ss 116, 172, 180

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed to resolve a conflict about the use of the common property and alterations to the lots. Act, ss 21, 62(2)-(3), 95(1)(a), 195, 196, 339(5)(a); Standard Module, ss 3, 13(5), 82(1), 135, 180(1), 187(4)(b).

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PRPOPERTY; DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – whether the respondents must remove a deck that was constructed without body corporate approval on unallocated common property; whether the respondents must reverse landscaping changes they made to the common property without body corporate authorisation; whether a fence must be removed to allow lot 1 unfettered access to common property beyond it. Act, ss 10(2)(b), 35(1), 62(2), 94(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 184(2)(a), 187; Land Title Act 1994, s 48C.

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

The court refused leave to the Owners Corporation to rely on supplementary expert reports served in breach of a consented guillotine order, finding the explanation for non-compliance was not adequate, comprehensive, and candid.

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.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 96, 279; Accommodation Module, s 200.

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

BY-LAWS – where occupier is parking vehicle on common property – whether the vehicle causes an obstruction in contravention of the by-laws – whether body corporate approval was given – whether orders can be made against the respondent owner. Act, ss 94, 185

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

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether access wrongfully denied; REASONABLENESS – of body corporate installing gutters on lot 15 deck. Act, ss 20, 94, 100(5), 205; Standard Module, ss 180, 231

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

EMERGENCY ORDER\_-\_ APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR Act s\_s\_ 227, 229(3), 243A, 301.

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

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 – residential building work – statutory warranties – defendant constructed development of 45 townhouses – extent of defects – whether damage to lot property or common property – scope of rectification works

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; EASEMENT; REASONABLENESS – where the applicant submitted a motion to a general meeting seeking approval to mount two air conditioning condensers on a common property wall, but the motion failed; whether an easement exists in favour of the condensers in that location; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably; whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, ss 94(2), 167; Small Schemes Module, ss 99(4)(a)(ii)(E), 106(4)(b), 131; Land Title Act 1994, s 115O.

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the body corporate resolved to enter into an agreement to allow access to its common property facilities by a neighbouring property – whether the motion was valid – whether the person voting on behalf of the subsidiary bodies corporate was eligible and authorised to do so – whether the agreement is valid – TIME LIMIT – whether there is good reason to waive the time limit for an application to invalidate the general meeting or the disputed motion. Act, ss 94, 95, 242, 309; Standard Module, ss 10, 12, 99, 103, 191 /

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW / REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to grant approval to keep a dog. Act, ss 94, 100

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where pergolas and glazings (Improvements) installed on the balconies of two lots in or before 2017 do not comply with conditions of body corporate approval, in part because both Improvements have non-compliant combustible cladding as a roof, whether the body corporate resolved to rescind its prior approval for the entirety of the Improvements, whether new approval required. REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate and committee acted reasonably in making decisions about the Improvements. DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – whether pergolas or glazings required authorisation by a resolution without dissent. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – whether it is just and equitable in the circumstances to make orders that the respondents remove the Improvements in their entirety. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 154, 159; Standard Module, ss 184, 187, 192

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

• Samar Sultan lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 54721 owners corp

The appeal regarding the monetary order for levies ($15,105.62) was dismissed and affirmed, but the appeal regarding the water ingress application was upheld and remitted for rehearing due to denial of procedural fairness when the respondent's expert witness was not available for cross-examination.

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate resolved to enter into an agreement for the caretaking service contractor to provide ancillary services – where applicant disputes the validity of the decision – whether interim order should be granted in the circumstances. Act, s279(1)

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

• Mercy Samia lot owner
• Carolina Foster lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 67743 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal refused; the Tribunal's decision to appoint Strata Management Services Pty Ltd as compulsory strata manager for the dysfunctional two-lot strata scheme was upheld.