Decisions table

INTERIM ORDER; REASONABLENESS of committee resolutions. Act, ss 100(5), 150(2), 279; Accommodation Module, ss 152, 153, 154, 155

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

ADMINISTRATOR – where the body corporate has ceased to function since a previous administrator appointment ended; whether a further administrator appointment is required. Act, ss 276(4), 278, 301; Standard Module, ss 13(3)(d)&(5), 74(4), 84, 102(2), 160(1)(b), 223(3)(b).

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); Standard Module, ss 168, 172

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where owner motions to approve the installation of solar panels on common property rooves to supply solar power to lots were not passed – whether consent was unreasonably refused – DAMAGES – whether the dissenting owners are liable for loss to the owners who submitted the motions – COSTS – whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance - whether the applicants should pay costs to the respondent. BUGT Act, ss 17, 18, 27, 30, 37A, 78, 79, 95C,

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicant alleges a motion to reappoint the body corporate manager was invalid; whether to prevent the motion from being implemented prior to final orders. Act, ss 149B, 279(1); Accommodation Module, s 87(3)(a), 95(1)(a).

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

• Noela Hunt lot owner
• Brian Hunt lot owner
• Cheryl Hunt lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 1158/84199 owners corp

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's decision that the owners corporation did not unreasonably refuse consent to install air-conditioning units on the balconies in non-compliant positions was upheld.

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY - EXCLUSIVE USE – where improvements were made to exclusive use area without body corporate approval. Act, ss 94(2), 276(1)

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

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside orders – corrections under slip rule – orders amended

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 64757 owners corp
• Sydney Remedial Builders Pty Ltd builder

Leave to appeal refused; the Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision that proceedings claiming $850,000 in damages for building defects were commenced out of time under the Home Building Act 7-year limitation period.

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 Commercial Module, s 30

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

Amendment of unit entitlements - Whether if allocated at the time of the application, schedule of unit entitlements would require amendments - Whether unit entitlements proportionate to the value of each lot relative to the sum of the value of all the lots in the strata titles scheme - Capital valuation

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.

ARCHITECTURAL CODE – whether the respondents have installed a clothesline in breach of the architectural code and by-laws – whether the architectural code and by-laws are valid. Act, ss 66, 97, 180; Standard Module, s 6.

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

ADMINISTRATOR; SUPPLY OF SERVICES – whether to appoint an administrator to bring the scheme back into compliance with the Act following a long period of inactivity; whether the scheme must change its water meters to allow owners to be charged for their lots’ individual consumption, rather than owners paying a share of the scheme’s total water use proportionate to their contribution schedule lot entitlements as presently occurs. Act, ss 31, 101(2), 196, 278; Standard Module, ss 7, 13(1), 58, 82(1), 83, 93(3)(a), 160(1), 162(1), 197(1).

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, ss 151 & 279(1); Commercial Module, s181

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – where the body corporate held its annual general meeting outside the legislative time limit – whether an order declaring the AGM to be valid is warranted in the circumstances. Accommodation Module, s 73

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS; BODY CORPORATE MANAGER; IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – Where the applicant challenges the validity of three general meeting motions proposing the appointment of a body corporate manager, works to the common property, and funding for the works to the common property. Whether the motions should be deemed invalid because: the notice of meeting and explanatory material were deficient the incumbent body corporate manager received and counted votes for a motion proposing their own reappointment owners were misled into believing the works to common property were maintenance only, but they included improvements, and a motion proposing a special levy to fund the improvements was decided by ordinary rather than special resolution. Act, ss 14, 106, 118(2), 119(2), 149B; Accommodation Module, ss 80, 81, 95(1)(b), 97(2), 102(1), 104, 125(2)(b), 152, 176.

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

COMMITTEE DECISION– REASONABLENESS - where committee has restricted access to secure parking spaces so that the number of fobs programmed to allow access to the secured car park is equal to the number of car spaces allocated to each unit – whether a decision on a restricted issue – whether decision reasonable in the circumstances. Act, s276. Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 276; Accommodation Module, s 44.

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

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – whether an order should be made to change the body corporate’s financial year. Act, s283

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 94(2); Standard Module, ss 44, 173

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

Owners Corporation

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 85494 owners corp
• PBS Building (NSW) Pty Ltd builder
• Iris Property Group Pty Ltd developer
• Squillace Architects Pty Ltd consultant
• Royal Tiles Australia Pty Ltd contractor

Leave to amend pleading to add fire safety defects was granted conditionally, with the trial judge to determine whether the Second Defendant was prejudiced and whether the amendments should be revoked, and the Owners ordered to pay the Second Defendant's costs thrown away by the amendments.

COSTS — appeals — whether the Tribunal erred in not finding special circumstances and ordering costs after the Respondent, in substance, consented to the relief sought by the Appellant, the Applicant below — failure to consent to the Appellant’s proceedings earlier was not unreasonable — the Tribunal did not err in not finding special circumstances and not awarding costs in favour of the Appellant — whether the order of the Tribunal directing the Appellant to exempt the Respondent from any costs

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

MAINTENANCE – responsibility for painting of lot with private yard in BFP; BY-LAWS – whether preliminary procedures complied with regarding alleged breach. Act, s 184; Accommodation Module, ss 159, 170

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.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

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

NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – where the respondent smokes on her lot and the applicant who resides in the neighbouring lot experiences smoke drift and odour – whether the respondent is causing a nuisance, a hazard, or an unreasonable interference in breach of the Act. Act, s 167

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

• Anne Casey lot owner
• Renfay Projects Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 586 owners corp

Applications by the Owners Corporation and Anne Casey to vary the Appeal Panel's costs order were dismissed, and the original order requiring Anne Casey to pay costs to Renfay Projects Pty Limited and The Owners Strata Plan 586 on the ordinary basis was reinstated.

Costs; Owners Corporations

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

COSTS – Costs assessment – Determination – Mixed results – Parties succeeding and failing in both claims and cross claims – Intent to find just and equitable costs solution to whole of the proceedings

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

INTERIM ORDER – IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY whether interim order should be granted halting works for which approval is required but not yet given Act, ss 159, 279; Standard Module, s 187

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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – whether spending is required to meet an emergency in circumstances where the expenditure has already been undertaken – whether relevant limit for major spending applicable to committee decision not within relevant limit for committee spending. Act, ss 20, 243A; Standard Module, ss 172, 180

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether reasonable to refuse to approve solar panels and associated infrastructure on the basis installation of conduit would change the external appearance of the lot – whether placement of conduit reasonably necessary – whether “ban the banners” provisions extend to obtaining authorisation to make an improvement to common property; placement of conduit servicing photovoltaic cells. Act, s 94; Accommodation Module, s 177; Building Act 1975 (Qld), s246S

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges the committee breached the defamation by-law – REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate should have issued the applicant and other lot owners with by-law contravention notices – COSTS – whether costs should be awarded to the respondent. Act, ss 94(2), 100, 183, 270; Accommodation Module, ss 63(1),(2) and (6)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – 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: it is unnecessary to increase the major spending limit as a second quotation could be 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 interim orders should be made to prevent the implementation of these resolutions until the questions about their validity may be decided. Act, ss 94(2), 279(1); Accommodation Module, ss 83(2)(a)(v), 125(2)(c)(i), 163, 174(2)(b)(ii), 176(1)(c).

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.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate passed a motion authorising the committee to enter into a contract with a supplier to take over the management of the scheme’s embedded electricity network – where the applicant is seeking for the motion to be declared invalid – whether there are urgent circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, ss 161, 163

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether the motion to engage the body corporate manager was valid. Act, s 94; Accommodation Module, ss 88, 125, 127.

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

REASONABLENESS – whether committee acted reasonably in refusing lot owners’ request for permission to keep two dogs on their lot for a limited period – whether orders are warranted. BCCM Act, ss 94(2), 100(2)

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether motions correctly prepared where the relevant limit for major spending exceeded – whether other irregularities in preparation of voting papers and return of votes – strict requirement to comply with control of spending provisions – circumstances in which noncompliance with meeting procedures may not lead to resolutions being invalidated Standard Module, ss 87, 173

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

BY-LAWS – where the body corporate resolved at general meeting to enforce a by-law against the respondent to remove an unapproved pool pavilion – where the alleged breach relates to an architectural code in the principal scheme’s CMS, parts of which have been determined invalid in a previous adjudicator’s decision – whether the by-law can be enforced.

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where a defect in the roof trusses above lot 7 damaged the ceiling sheets and cornices within the lot; where the body corporate took responsibility and largely repaired the damage, but some damage remained; whether the body corporate should repair the remaining damage. Act, s 281; Accommodation Module, s 170(2)(b)(ii).

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

REASONABLENESS – whether body corporate acted reasonably in refusing to approve motion on the basis of unrelated debts or unpaid fees – whether reasonable to refuse to pass motion because proposal is not outlined in preferred form – whether reasonable to refuse to pass motion because information was missing from original request but was included with notice of the meeting. Act, s 94; Small Schemes Module, s 112

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.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether unauthorised improvement should be removed. Act, ss 94(2), 159; Accommodation Module, ss 167, 177, 183

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

• S Selkirk lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 2661 owners corp

The appellant was successful on appeal in relation to the common property issue concerning bathroom repairs and related claims, but the costs orders were structured to quarantine the flooring issue on which the appellant was unsuccessful, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondents' costs on that severable issue while receiving most of her appeal costs from the owners corporation.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether a motion should have been ruled out of order - whether a motion was invalid on the basis that its meaning and effect was not conveyed – whether votes accepted on the motion were invalid. Accommodation Module, ss 88, 91

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

MAINTENANCE; REIMBURSEMENT – A common property drain beneath the applicant’s ensuite leaked and damaged the ceiling of the lot below. The applicant paid to repair the drain and the body corporate paid to repair the ceiling. The body corporate added the cost of repairing the ceiling to the applicant’s levies account, where it caused him to lose on-time payment discounts and incur penalty interest and recovery costs until he paid it. Whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant for the drain and ceiling repairs, the lost discounts, the penalty interest, and recovery costs. Act, ss 20, 252E(5), 281; Standard Module, ss 102(2), 163-166, 180(1), 187.

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

• Kevin Lenux lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 88786 owners corp

The appeal against the costs order was granted on procedural fairness grounds; however, the Appeal Panel affirmed that costs should be awarded to the Owners as the lot owner had undertaken unauthorised works to common property without proper approval and refused to accept this throughout the proceedings.