Decisions table

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, ss 94(2), 279

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURE – GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether the original owner held powers of attorney for owners – whether a general meeting called by the representative of the original owner was valid – whether motions were valid – COMMITTEE MOTIONS – whether the representative of the original owner constituted the committee – whether motions passed by the representative of the original owner were valid – BODY CORPORATE DEBT – whether levies were waived – whether an order can be made about a debt. Act, 96, 211, 229A; Standard Module, 9, 13, 52, 91, 94, 101, 162, 224

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

• Nerrida de Beck lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 30468 owners corp
• Brilliant Property Group Pty Ltd manager

A compulsory strata managing agent (Brilliant Property Group Pty Ltd) was appointed to exercise all functions of the owners corporation for 12 months due to the management not functioning satisfactorily, including inadequate roof leak repairs, unresolved toilet maintenance issues, failure to remove an unauthorised bollard, and failure to prepare a required capital works plan.

MOTION to enter into new caretaking service contract – whether ruled out of order incorrectly; whether resolved. Act, ss 101, 108; Accommodation Module, ss 79, 88, 91, 106, 125, 147, 163

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondent painted the exterior of their side of the building in a different colour – whether the painting was agreed to – required standard for decision-making by a body corporate. Small Schemes Module, ss 106, 112

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.

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property - whether the respondent has failed to comply with the request – whether control of the bank account should be transferred. Accommodation Module, s 224

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

MAINTENANCE – BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is breaching the regulations or the by-laws in regard to the cleaning and maintenance of his lot. Act, ss 167, 181-188; Accommodation Module, s 201

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 4393 owners corp
• Mei Lan Roberts lot owner
• The Commissioner for Fair Trading of the Department of Customer Service government

The respondent was ordered to pay civil penalties totalling $8,250 for contravening tribunal stop work orders by carrying out plumbing work, structural works, and other renovations on her lot, and to pay the applicant's costs on an ordinary basis.

Owners Corporations

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

EMERGENCY ORDER. Act, s 243A

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

EMERGENCY ORDER. Act, s 243A

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.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for recusal – where plaintiff identified no basis for recusal – request refused JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – where plaintiff brought application to set aside orders – where plaintiff did not materially engage with provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – where plaintiff alleges judge had hidden and malicious agenda – application dismissed

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing resolution to proceed with painting works. Act, s279

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

MAINTENANCE – where there are building defects affecting the applicant’s lot – whether . COSTS – where the respondent failed to participate in conciliation – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 280; Standard Module, s 180

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

CONSENT ORDER – whether an order should be made by consent. Act, ss 252J, 270(1)(b), 276(5)

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

• Promina Design & Construction Pty Ltd builder
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 97449 owners corp

The respondent's application for costs of the appeal was dismissed as rule 38 did not apply and no special circumstances warranting an award of costs were established.

GENERAL MEETING VOTING – where a new owner provided their details for the roll, but the body corporate did not enter those details in the roll before a general meeting – where the owner’s vote was excluded because they were not on the roll – where a motion failed by one vote – whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 91, 213, 214

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

• TMCM Enterprises Pty Ltd lot owner
• Global Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd party
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 78894 owners corp
• Strata Community Insurance Agencies Pty Ltd insurer
• KatzBergin Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd consultant

The court ordered the second plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amounts of $65,000 for the first defendant, $65,000 for the second defendant, and $90,000 for the third defendant, with proceedings stayed until security is provided.

INTERIM ORDER The body corporate refused the applicant’s request to keep a pet. Should an interim order be made to allow the applicant to keep a pet, pending a final determination of the application? Act, s 100(5) INTERIM ORDERS: Pending further or final order, and with effect for no more than 12 months, the owner and occupiers of Lot 39 are deemed to have the Body Corporate’s approval to keep the dog Lulu on the scheme, subject to the following conditions: a. The dog must ordinarily be kept within the lot when on scheme land, and must not be on the common property except while restrained and being taken to or from the lot. b. The dog must not interfere unreasonably with any person's use or enjoyment of another lot or the common property. This approval does not apply to an additional or different animal. The Body Corporate may take steps to have the dog removed if it has reasonable grounds to believe that these conditions have not been substantially complied with and the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with written notice of the alleged non-compliance.

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is breaching a parking by-law. Act, ss 183, 184, 280.

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

PROPERY DAMAGE – where the applicant claims a window was damaged by the body corporate’s cleaning contractor – whether the body corporate is responsible for the cost of replacing the window – INSURANCE EXCESS – where an intruder damaged the applicant’s garage doors – where the damage was covered by insurance – whether the body corporate should pay the insurance excess. Act, s 94(2), 100(5), 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201, 203

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – to erect temporary fencing between lots 1-7 and the river boardwalk - whether valid. Act, s 100(5)

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – REASONABLENESS – whether committee acted unreasonably in refusing approval for installation of electric vehicle charger. Act, ss 100(5), 159, 173, item 17 of Schedule 5; Accommodation Module, ss 177, 183, 217

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed – who should be appointed, with what powers, and for how long. Act, ss 276, 278, 301

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – where the body corporate committee repeatedly refused to allow an owner to purchase a dog and keep it at the scheme subject to conditions proposed by the body corporate - whether the committee acted unreasonably making the decisions – whether approval for the dog should be deemed granted. Act, s 100(5).

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

GENERAL MEETING; GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether valid. Act, ss 227(1)(c), 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, ss 58, 60(3), 88, 91, 100(e), 106

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to reappoint the body corporate manager was put forward at the scheme’s annual general meeting – where the applicant alleged the motion did not follow the correct procedure and requested it be ruled out of order – where the chairman declined to rule the motion out of order and the motion was carried – whether the motion should be invalidated. Standard Module, s 173

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

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES – whether the committee can refuse to permit electronic attendance of a committee meeting. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, s 55.

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – where the body corporate passed on to the applicant the charge for an unwanted fire alarm activation in the applicant’s lot – where the applicant paid the charge and now disputes it - whether the body corporate should reimburse the charge. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 210

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 2227 owners corp
• Navhand Pty Ltd lot owner

Judgment entered for the Owners Corporation against Navhand for unpaid strata levies, interest, and recovery costs totalling $94,740.78, with the defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

MAINTENANCE – where the body corporate carried out work to an exclusive use area – whether the owner is responsible for the costs of the work carried out – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether the dispute is a ‘debt dispute’; where a fence has fallen into disrepair – whether the body corporate is responsible for replacing it. Act, ss94, 229A; Standard Module, ss192(2), 212

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 8461 owners corp
• Joseph Georghy lot owner

The owners corporation's application for orders to remove items stored on common property, remove unauthorised alterations, prevent vehicle parking, and restore common property was dismissed as the corporation failed to establish its case.

• Bei Bei Tao lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 16107 owners corp

The appeal was upheld and the owners corporation was ordered to undertake all necessary work to repair the internal wall in Lot 8, including stopping water from travelling behind tiles into cement render, removing the watermark, and painting the room to its original condition by 1 March 2024.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 owners corp
• Pafburn Pty Ltd builder
• Madarina Pty Limited developer

The Court allowed the appeal and struck out the builder's proportionate liability defences, holding that the non-delegable duty under section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 is not subject to apportionment under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicant argues that a motion to engage a contractor to install water meters was void – where the motion failed – whether the body corporate should be prevented from engaging a contractor until the validity of the motion can be decided. Act, s 279(1).

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant constructed a shed on common property in the scheme’s basement carpark – where the body corporate voted at a general meeting for the shed to be removed but the applicant submits the decision is unreasonable and in breach of the Act and the code of conduct – whether there are circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 52

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

BY-LAWS – where a by-law specifies that timber shutters matching those in lot 2 are to be installed at the front of the lots – where the respondent removed the timber shutters and replaced them with white linen curtains – whether the respondent must reinstate the timber shutters and reimburse the applicant’s conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 62(3)(a), 169(1)(b)(i), 280.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 21563 owners corp
• Katherine Yvonne Rutherford lot owner

The appeal was allowed and the judgment amount was reduced from $10,169.29 to $7,019.64 by excluding legal costs incurred in pre-litigation mediation, which were found to be prohibited by Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 clause 60.

GENERAL MEETING – where notice was not properly given to owners to propose motions and committee nominations for AGM and late notice was given of the AGM being held – where owner seeks to have AGM held again Standard Module, s 16, 91

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – IMPROVEMENT – EASEMENT – MAINTENANCE WHERE: the body corporate wishes to clean high rise building exterior windows and balustrades; the body corporate wishes to install anchor points on the applicant’s lot to occasionally attach abseiling equipment; the body corporate issued a notice of entry to install the anchor points; the applicant lot owners object because they would be permanent installations; the body corporate says alternatives are not financially viable; the parties have agreed to an interim alternative mechanism which does not require installation of the anchor points WHETHER: the entry notice is valid; the anchor points are an improvement to the lot or instead are utility infrastructure; there is an easement over the lot in favour of installing the anchor points; the anchor points are reasonably necessary to supply the cleaning utility service; the body corporate acted unreasonably in deciding to install the anchor points without consent of the owner Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, ss 158, 163, 68, 94 Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 115P

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 44958 owners corp
• Joanne Michel lot owner
• Alan Cook lot owner

The Tribunal ordered replacement of the Colourbond fence with equal cost-sharing between the parties, rejecting the applicant's claim that the retaining wall was part of the dividing fence and finding the existing fence was not sufficient.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate committee has refused the applicant permission to keep her dog in Lot 1 at the scheme – whether there are circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100, 247

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the body corporate committee resolved to relocate common property plumbing infrastructure at body corporate expense solely to facilitate the installation of a new air conditioner within a lot – whether the committee acted unreasonably – whether the body corporate must recoup the plumber’s fees from the lot owners – whether owners should always be required to meet the cost of changes to common property made solely to facilitate the improvement of their lots. Act, ss 20(1)(b), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 176, 177.

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

CIVIL DISPUTE – statutory duty of owners corporation to maintain common property – duty to maintain common property includes taking steps to prevent common property from falling into disrepair, repairing common property when it is in disrepair, and carrying out repairs of any damage to other property occurring as a result of disrepair in the common property – statutory obligation to carry out repairs within a reasonable time – whether damage to the common property would cause real disruption to the tenant – whether unit owner is entitled to civil remedy where income is affected by damage to unit caused by disrepair of common property – whether a breach of a statutory duty gives rise to a civil remedy – evidence insufficient to found a claim of negligence – statutory remedy awarded pursuant to section 129(1)(d) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Legislation cited: Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 19, 24, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW) s 226 Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 (NSW) s 105

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – where several engineers have mentioned movement of the foundations and questioned whether plumbing leaks and poor drainage might be contributing – where the applicant submitted a motion to a general meeting proposing to engage an engineer to conduct further investigations, but the motion failed - whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when deciding against the motion – whether the body corporate must engage someone to identify the cause of cracking and movement in the foundations and investigate plumbing and drainage conditions at the scheme. Act, ss 20, 94(2); Standard Module, s 180.

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

COSTS – special circumstances

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 99779 owners corp
• Rockdale One Pty Ltd builder
• Piety THP Pty Ltd party

The Tribunal found that numerous defect items (CP.503, CP.506, CP.507, CP.508, CP.509, CP.511, CP.80, CP.302 and all similar instances) were defective and ordered the respondents to rectify them by work order to be filed within 14 days.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 276(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5.

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