Decisions table

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. Accommodation Module, ss 102(2), 184(2)(a).

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether body corporate acted unreasonably by failing to approve installation of lift for access to lot – sufficiency of information provided in motions – relevance of claim of breach of anti-discrimination legislation – opposition to exclusive use motion founded in factors weighing against approval of improvement. BCCM Act, ss 94, 171; Standard Module, ss 187

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.

BY-LAWS - whether a lot occupier’s dog is causing unreasonable interference in breach of the by-laws - whether noise amounts to unreasonable interference – applicant’s obligation to prove application Act, ss 167, 169, 180

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

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT STATEMENT – whether the community management statement includes an error in the allocation of an exclusive use car space. Act, ss 62, 171

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

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – whether proceedings brought out of time – whether interim occupation certificate authorised occupation and use of the “whole of the building” for the purposes of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – application to strike out – whether claims under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) adequately articulated – whether necessary to prepare a schedule setting out the risks and steps to manage those ris

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where a by-law requires committee consent to construct a dwelling on a lot – where the committee refused consent, in part because the proposed dwelling was smaller and cheaper than other dwellings at the scheme – whether the committee’s decision should be reversed.

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

COSTS – party/party – self-represented litigant – where application made by defendant for gross sum costs orders under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) following summary dismissal of plaintiff’s claim – where conduct of the plaintiff significantly increased costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant – application granted

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 94, 152, 279

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

MAINTENANCE / PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether painting common property roof constitutes damage – INSURANCE – responsibility for body corporate insurance. Act, ss 180; Standard Module, ss 197, 198, 201, 206

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.

COMMITTEE MOTION – whether committee had the power to vary a policy restricting use of the pool for an aqua aerobics class – whether committee decision varied the rights, privileges, or obligations of owners Act, s 94

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

BY-LAWS; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where an owner installed new hard flooring in her lot in 2018 that did not achieve the floor impact insulation prescribed by the by-laws at that time, and continues to fail the more relaxed standard in the present by-laws - whether the owner must alter the flooring to achieve the present standard. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 97.

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

• Moira Bass-Skardon lot owner
• Anthony Abbess lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 33038 owners corp

The owners corporation was ordered to perform repairs to the sub-floor beneath Lot 6 and install a drainage system within 3 months, with all other applications dismissed.

STRATA PLANS - Operation of Car Park contrary to development application - Whether the tort of unlawful interference with trade forms part of the common law of Australia

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

BY-LAWS; ADMINISTRATOR; COSTS – whether the body corporate must enforce the scheme’s by-laws against the committee chairperson because he has been instructing body corporate contractors by email from his lot; whether the scheme requires an administrator; whether the applicant should pay the body corporate’s costs incurred in response to the application. Act, ss 94(2), 183(1)-(2),185(2)(a), 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, ss 47(3)(b), 50, 60(3).

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

NUISANCE / BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges the respondents are making excessive noise which is impacting the peaceful enjoyment of his lot – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 167, 185

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

BUDGETS – whether failure to adopt sinking fund budget and set contribution amount was a contravention of the legislation and unreasonable. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Small Scheme Module, s 79

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE; COSTS – where the applicant claims overland flows from common property behind his lot have damaged his home, but there is little evidence the common property stormwater infrastructure in the area is in poor condition – whether the body corporate is in breach of its obligation to maintain the infrastructure in good condition - whether the body corporate is obliged to install additional infrastructure to reduce the flows – whether the body corporate must pay to repair the damage to the applicant’s home – whether the applicant must compensate the body corporate for loss resulting from the application. Act, ss 270(1)(a)-(c) & (3)(b), 281; Standard Module, ss 84, 86(5), 173, 186(1).

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

INTERIM ORDER – MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate removed hedging plants from a planter box inside a lot due to failed waterproofing membrane – where the removal has altered the lot and increased lines of sight into the lot from common property recreational facilities – whether temporary measures should be taken to reinstate privacy to lot. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

NUISANCE – whether shouting and screaming amounted to unreasonable interference or nuisance – whether throwing glass and ceramic rubbish on a common property roadway amounted to unreasonable interference or nuisance – whether interfering with the travel of a car over the common property amounted to a nuisance Act, ss 94, 167

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

LAND LAW – Strata title – By-laws – Whether By-law granting exclusive use rights conditional on four critical obligations had been complied with – Whether clause of By-law ceasing exclusive use rights unless critical obligations were complied with is unjust – Whether clause of By-law ceasing exclusive use rights unless critical obligations were complied with is unconscionable, harsh or oppressive – Whether special levies are unreasonable – Award as to damages- reasonableness of costs – quantum a

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

INTERIM ORDER – MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate removed hedging plants from a planter box inside a lot due to failed waterproofing membrane – where the removal has altered the lot and increased lines of sight into the lot from common property recreational facilities – whether temporary measures should be taken to reinstate privacy to lot. Act, s 279; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

JURISDICTION – whether there is a dispute – application to approve a quote for maintenance work – where there is no evidence any quotes have been put to the body corporate before making the application Act, ss 270, 276

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY - where improvements were made several years ago, before transfer to the current owners – whether body corporate approval for the improvements was given. EXCLUSIVE USE – where there has been a history of each owner maintaining common property on their ‘side’ of the scheme – whether the body corporate should record a grant of exclusive use for each owner. GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion proposed to record a new community management statement to grant each of the owners exclusive use of an area of common property - where the motion failed to achieve a resolution without dissent – whether the dissenting vote was unreasonable in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(2), 276(1), Schedule 5, Item 10

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY - where improvements were made several years ago before transfer to the current owners – whether body corporate approval for the improvements was given. EXCLUSIVE USE – where there has been a history of each owner maintaining common property on their ‘side’ of the scheme – whether the body corporate should record a grant of exclusive use for each owner. GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion proposed to record a new community management statement to grant each of the owners exclusive use of an area of common property - where the motion failed to achieve a resolution without dissent – whether the dissenting vote was unreasonable in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(2), 276(1), Schedule 5, Item 10

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether by-laws limiting weight and number of animals prohibitive or regulatory – whether by-laws limiting weight and number of animals unreasonable – whether body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to approve two dogs in a general meeting decision – whether reasonable conditions could manage risks to other owners and occupiers – conditions included in general meeting motion Act, ss 94, 169, 180

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

BY-LAWS – where a by-law in a duplex prohibits one lot from being used as a real estate agency without the consent of the other lot owner - whether the by-law goes beyond regulating the use and enjoyment of the lot; whether the by-law is oppressive or unreasonable; whether the applicant is estopped from bringing the application. Act, ss 169, 180(7)

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

CIVIL PROCEDURE – separate determination of questions – whether the amount of damages to which a party are entitled should be heard separately EVIDENCE – expert evidence – whether single party expert should be appointed

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

MAINTENANCE of UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether body corporate has failed to maintain overland water flow drainage infrastructure in good condition; whether the body corporate must perform drainage works to common property site wide to reduce overland flows into courtyards and lots FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether body corporate’s administrative and sinking fund budgets are adequate. Act, ss 20(1), 94(1)(a) & (2), 100(5), 152, 159; Standard Module, 160

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where lot owner proposed a motion at a general meeting for authorisation to replace aluminium balustrade with a glass balustrade, whether body corporate acted reasonably in deciding not to approve the motion. Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, s 187

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.

REASONABLENESS; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTIONS – where a general meeting voted to change the opening hours of an automatic gate that allows vehicles to enter the car park – where the applicant proposed alternative opening hours that would have better suited his tenant’s business but his motion failed – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably – whether the applicant’s motion should be given effect. Act, ss 94(1)(a)&(2), 270(1)(c)&(3).

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

All three appeals by Anne Casey against the Primary Decision, Work Order Decision, and Costs Decision were dismissed, with the Appeal Panel finding no procedural unfairness and no errors of law in the tribunal's original determinations.

BY-LAWS – whether pattern of communication amounts to unreasonable interference – whether additional orders restricting methods of communication appropriate – whether guide, hearing, or assistance animal exempt from keeping of animals by-law. Act, ss 94, 184

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

RECORDS – whether the body corporate failed to provide body corporate records to the applicant. Act, s 205; Accommodation Module, ss 220, 222

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the body corporate removed steps that had been installed by the applicant on common property – whether the body corporate must reinstate the steps. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, ss 186, 187

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

• Ned Abraham lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61419 owners corp
• BlueHouseCoffs Pty Ltd manager
• Arthur George Bilski lot owner
• Wojceich Marek Bilski lot owner

The appeal was dismissed as incompetent because Ned Abraham, a lot owner, lacked standing to appeal on behalf of the Owners Corporation after a compulsory strata manager with plenary powers was appointed, and the appointed manager did not ratify the appeal.

FINANCIAL YEAR – whether the financial year end date for the body corporate should be changed Act, s283

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant’s lot was damaged by water entering through a window and an expansion joint in a wall separating the lot from common property - whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant for repairs, lost rental income, and interest on those amounts. Act, ss 276(1), 281; Accommodation Module, s 170(1)&(2)(a)(ii).

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

JURISDICTION – whether adjudicator has exclusive and sole jurisdiction in the first instance – whether application should be dismissed so it may be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. MAINTENANCE – whether body corporate or lot owner responsible for maintaining the floor of a lot – whether a joint is part of the floor for which the body corporate is responsible – whether defects in construction of floor make the floor structurally unsound – whether body corporate contravened the Act by breaching its duty to maintain – whether lot owner should be reimbursed for expenses incurred relating to the contravention. Act, ss 152, 229(3), 270(1)(b), 276, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

NOISE – where the applicant reports noise and vibration from utility infrastructure in the building – whether the body corporate has failed to meet its obligations – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 20, 94, 167; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 176, 177

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

BY-LAWS – whether the lot owner is contravening a noise by-law with the use of the lot above or creating an unreasonable interference with the use of the lot above Act, ss 167, 185

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

RECORDS – where the applicant seeks body corporate records –whether the body corporate has failed to comply with its statutory obligation to provide records – whether body corporate has acted reasonably. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 205, Standard Module s 166(5)

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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – where the committee has sought authorisation for expenditure in excess of the relevant committee spending limit – whether the circumstances constitute an ‘emergency’ and the expenditure should be authorised Act, s 20; Accommodation Module, ss 81, 162, 170

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

MAINTENANCE; IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the respondent removed vegetation from his lot and proposes to install a fence along the boundary with the applicant’s lot – whether the work contravened a by-law, a covenant for the protection of habitat, the architectural and landscape code in the community management statement, the scheme’s development approval, the Planning Act 2016, or caused a nuisance – whether the respondent must reinstate his lot to its former condition. Act, s 276(1); Standard Module, ss 180(1)&(7), 211(2)-(3).

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in accepting a quote to bypass rather than repair utility infrastructure – whether the body corporate is liable for necessary damage caused by maintaining the common property – whether the body corporate is required to give notice of intended entry. Act, ss 20, 94, 163, 177, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether notice of annual general meeting validly given – whether voters present personally at a general meeting sufficient for quorum – whether irregularities in meeting procedure disenfranchised a voter – whether meeting should be declared void for irregularity. Standard Module, ss 87, 99, 100

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

INTERIM ORDER; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; REASONABLENESS – where the applicant claims the body corporate resolved to engage a contractor above the major spending limit without considering two quotations – where the applicant claims the contractor does not hold the required QBCC licence – whether the body corporate should be prevented from engaging the contractor prior to final orders. Act, ss 94(2), 279(1); Standard Module, s 173.

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the respondents are relevant persons – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the application. Act, ss 150, 239C, 270(1)(e); Standard Module, s 166

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