Decisions table

• 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.

MAINTENANCE – in building format plan – whether body corporate has failed to meet their obligations, whether body corporate is responsible for the cost of repairs to a lot – where applicant argues that damage is attributable to a failure by the body corporate to maintain a roofing structure and/ or utility infrastructure Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281; Standard Module, s 180. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") Ridis v The Owners Strata Plan 10308 [[2005] NSWCA 246](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2005/246.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") Costa D’ora Apartments [[2006] QBCCMCmr 628](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2006/628.html "View Case") Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D’Ora [[2007] QDC 300](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2007/300.html "View Case").

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether body corporate acted reasonably when it decided at a general meeting to resolve to remove pavers from an area of common property and replace them with grass. Act, ss 94(2), 270(3)

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether replacement of gas hot water system with electric hot water system constitutes an improvement to common property – whether statutory easement extinguished – whether body corporate acted reasonably in refusing to approve air conditioning unit as an improvement to common property. GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether clause in motion purporting to take effect upon that motion failing to pass is valid. Act, ss 68, 70, 94, 187, 280; Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 115O

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether replacement of gas hot water system with electric hot water system constitutes an improvement to common property – whether statutory easement extinguished. GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether clause in motion purporting to take effect upon that motion failing to pass is valid Act, ss 68, 70; Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 115O

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

BY-LAWS –whether the by-laws referred to in the application bind the respondent as the owner of a lot – whether the applicant has provided evidence that the respondent is in breach of the by-laws. Act, ss 20, 35, 59, 62, 58; Standard Module, ss 187, 193

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must replace a balcony handrail to match handrails on nearby common property, reimburse the applicant for a stop cock he installed on common property in preparation for a renovation to his lot, or trim trees around the common property pool pursuant to a general meeting resolution. Act, ss 20, 101(2), 166; Standard Module, ss 180, 187.

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

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – where the applicant seeks body corporate consent to apply for approval to change the use of its lot – where the applicant does not agree with the body corporate’s conditions for giving consent – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably. Act, ss 94, 100

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION– where an owner sought body corporate approval for an improvement to their lot and exclusive use area – whether approval was required – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing consent. Act, s94(2); Standard Module, s 193

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION, REASONABLENESS – The applicants installed air conditioning infrastructure on common property with the written authorisation of the committee chair but without the authority of a body corporate resolution. They submitted a motion seeking retrospective approval to a general meeting but it failed to pass. Whether the body corporate has acquiesced to the infrastructure, it benefits from a statutory easement, or the body corporate acted unreasonably when refusing to grant retrospective approval. Whether the motion should be deemed carried. Act, ss 35(1), 94(1)(a)&(2), 97, 280; Standard Module, ss 187; Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4), 115O(1).

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.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion proposed to amend a clause of a caretaking and letting agreement – where the legislation therefore required voters to be provided with material including the terms and effect of the amendment – whether that requirement was satisfied – where the explanatory note allegedly did not put a balanced view for and against the proposed amendment – where a caretaking service contractor is obliged under the Code of Conduct to act in the body corporate’s best interests – whether the caretaking service contractor was therefore obliged to put a balanced view in the explanatory note – where the explanatory note allegedly misrepresented a legal proposition concerning the amendment – whether the legal proposition was an expression of opinion – whether an expression of opinion can be misleading conduct if the opinion is incorrect – whether the explanatory note was misleading to the extent the decision to pass the motion was unreasonable SECRET VOTING – where a motion was required to be decided by secret ballot – where voters were instructed to vote in hard copy and electronically – where the body corporate had not authorised electronic voting for secret ballots – where the electronic votes were ruled out of order and not counted – where the motion was declared passed based on the hard copy votes – whether the electronic voting process affected the outcome – whether the resolution should be invalidated because the electronic voting process was unauthorised Act, ss 118, Sched 2 item 4 Accommodation Module, ss 99(1), 125(2)

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

BY-LAWS – where the respondent has installed a solar system but the owners of another lot have complained that the power box for the solar system is blocking the ocean view from the bedroom of their lot – whether the respondent is in breach of the scheme’s by-laws. Act, ss 94, 182

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – INSURANCE – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in refusing to reimburse the applicant’s insurance excess payment – whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the excess to be paid by the owner of the lot IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in refusing to install reflux devices on common property. Act, s 94(2); Accommodation Module, s 193.

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

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES – whether committee resolution to improve common property by removing stairs changed rights and privileges of owners or disposed of an interest in common property – when body corporate can ratify committee decisions – purpose of declaratory orders MAINTENANCE – whether committee acted reasonably by removing instead of maintaining stairs – whether body corporate discharged maintenance obligations where unsafe balustrade temporarily locked off COSTS – purpose of ancillary and consequential provisions in orders Act, ss 94, 270, 280, 284; Standard Module, ss 52, 180, 184, 186

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondents extended a deck over unallocated common property as authorised by ordinary resolution – whether a resolution without dissent was required – whether the deck extension must be removed. Standard Module, ss 102(2), 184(2)(a).

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

Costs; Owners Corporations

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions passed at a general meeting are valid – whether the body corporate could resolve to install fencing and gates on common property – whether the body corporate could require alterations to a stormwater pipe or undertake the work itself and recover the cost as a debt - whether motions to approve deck extension amounted to a disposition of common property and required a resolution without dissent. Act, ss 62, 94, 242, 270; Standard Module, ss 184, 186, 187, 211, 212

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

REASONABLENESS of body corporate’s refusal for IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY, EXCLUSIVE USE AREA. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 159; 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 commissioned a report and repaired two windows in a boundary wall and one window and two doors that were part of a lot, whether the committee acted reasonably in the circumstances in making decisions about maintenance obligations and to apportion the total cost of the report to the body corporate, and only apportion 20% of the costs of the repairs to the lot owner – whether orders sought are warranted. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 160, 161, 280; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 200, 201(3), 202

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

MAINTENANCE – whether owner has failed to maintain the lot in good condition – whether the lot is in a clean and tidy condition Accommodation Module, s 201

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

BY-LAWS – whether unapproved change to external appearance of exclusive use area contravened by-law – whether unapproved improvement to exclusive use area contravened by-law – whether approvals for alleged contraventions withheld unreasonably. Act, ss 94, 184

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – where water is entering the applicant’s home from the balconies of her lot and the common property roof, and noise is entering from an extraction fan on the roof – whether the body corporate must rectify the water ingress and the damage it has caused, repair the roof, and engage someone to investigate the noise from the extraction fan – whether the body corporate must reimburse costs incurred by the applicant in pursuit of these issues. Act, ss 20, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 170.

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where owner has approval to keep pet dog in the scheme – where owner disputes condition requiring the animal to be carried or contained on common property – whether the condition should be amended to allow the dog to be kept on a leash. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

JURISDICTION – meaning of dispute – whether committee for a body corporate has standing to bring application against that body corporate. Act, ss 227, 270, 276

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

• Karen Marie Gill lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 17913 owners corp
• Warwick Young manager

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's original decision dismissing the applicant's application for removal of the building manager/committee chairperson and various management orders was upheld.

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property from its body corporate manager - whether the manager has failed to comply with the request – BODY CORPORATE MANAGER – whether other orders are warranted regarding the conduct of the body corporate manager. Standard Module, s 235

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the respondents have failed to maintain their garage – whether the respondents should be required to undertake remedial works – whether costs should be awarded. Standard Module, s 211

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

BY-LAWS – where a by-law requires body corporate approval to display signs on the visible parts of a lot – where the respondent has two signs in his lot that are visible from the common property - whether the signs have been approved by the body corporate or the body corporate has acquiesced to them – whether the signs must be removed.

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