Decisions table

GENERAL MEETING – whether notices of extraordinary general meeting were properly distributed – whether allegations of pre-filled voting forms are substantiated – whether committee followed procedures to approve motions for general meeting – whether individual motions and resolutions were valid. Act, s 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 79, 125, 147, 174

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – validity of resolution authorising erection of fence. Act, ss 100(5),163; Accommodation Module, s 176

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

MAINTENANCE – where the applicants are experiencing noise from exhaust fans in the basement carpark – where the exhaust fans are the responsibility of the principal body corporate – whether orders against the subsidiary body corporate are warranted. Act, ss 94, 100

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

NUISANCE / HAZARD / INSURANCE – where the parties reside in a duplex and the applicant alleges the respondent is causing a nuisance and a hazard by accumulating rubbish in front of Lot 1 – where the applicant is seeking to be reimbursed for the respondent’s portion of the scheme’s insurance premium – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 59(2), 167, 185(2), 270, 280

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 – where awning extends from the front of the scheme – where body corporate records silent as to whether the awning was constructed for the body corporate or the owner of Lot 1 – where local government required repairs to the awning – where the body corporate paid to have awning repairs undertaken – where body corporate then resolved to recover the amount from Lot 1 – whether there was a reasonable basis for the body corporate to assert that the lot owner was responsible for the maintenance – whether it was therefore unreasonable for the body corporate to pass the resolution REASONABLENESS – INSURANCE – CONTRIBUTIONS – where body corporate passed resolution to adjust contributions payable by a lot for reinstatement insurance premiums levied for past years – whether the power to adjust the contributions can be exercised retrospectively – meaning of ‘payable’ – whether reasonable to use the power retrospectively Act, s 94(2); Small Scheme Module, s 120

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

BY-LAWS – whether owner has failed to keep his lot in good condition; whether there has been a breach of by-laws – whether orders are warranted. Standard Module, 211

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

• Northern Beaches Council government
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 7114 owners corp

The hearing scheduled for 16 and 17 November 2023 was vacated, orders 5 to 16 made on 25 May 2023 were vacated, and the proceedings were listed for further directions not before 1 March 2024 due to the Tribunal being deprived of jurisdiction over issues that are the subject of concurrent District Court proceedings.

Owners Corporations

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

• Peter McDaid lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 60346 owners corp

The application was dismissed; the Tribunal found that while common property waterproofing was in disrepair, the lot owner failed to substantiate his damages claim for lost rent and failed to provide a sufficiently detailed scope of works to support a work order, and there were no grounds to appoint a compulsory strata manager or remove the strata committee member from office.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has parked on common property contrary to the scheme’s by-laws – whether the applicant body corporate should be permitted to tow offending vehicles Act, ss 94 and 184

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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – whether a resolution to re-engage a caretaking service contractor ought to be deemed void because owners were misled or underinformed, the body corporate acted unreasonably by imposing financial hardship on owners, or the motion, voting, or explanatory material were otherwise irregular. Act, ss 94(2), 270(1)(c)&(3); Accommodation Module, ss 58(1)-(2), 76(3), 80, 92(2), 125(2)(c)(i)(A), 127(2)(a)(i), 128(2)(a), 130(1), 131(1), 140.

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS – where the committee made decisions about electricity supply and toilet facility access for retail lots that are not part of the community titles scheme but governed by a building management statement – whether the decisions were valid – whether the committee acted reasonably – whether there is good reason to waive the time limit for lodging the application. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 242

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

• Robert Klewer lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan 70149 owners corp

The application seeking orders to set aside decisions of the Owners Corporation regarding payment plans, interest waiver, reimbursement for repairs, unit valuations, action against adjoining owner, and common property repairs was dismissed.

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.

RESOLUTIONS – where committee proposed works to common property timber balustrades, whether works are maintenance requiring an ordinary resolution or improvements requiring a special resolution – where cost of works exceeded major spending limit, whether it was not practicable for exceptional reasons to obtain more than one quote for the works – whether committee decisions made at informal meetings were valid. Act s 106; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163, 170, 176

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

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate resolved to remove fence – where applicant challenges the reasonableness of the body corporate’s 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.

• Lucineh Amirchian lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan no 99357 owners corp

The Appeal Panel upheld the appeal, set aside the first instance decision dismissing the application, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Appellant $7500 compensation for lost rental income due to the Respondent's breach of its duty to maintain and repair common property following water leakage.

• Ruihui Ma lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 65870 owners corp
• Michael Lehner lot owner
• Professional Strata Management Group manager
• Network Strata Services Pty Ltd manager

Network Strata Services Pty Ltd was appointed as the strata managing agent for 12 months in preference to Professional Strata Management Group due to doubts about PSMG's competence based on prior failures, with no order as to costs.

APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR – whether circumstances indicate that the body corporate is so dysfunctional as to warrant appointment of administrator Act, ss 227, 228, 276, 284, 301

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

• Paul Thomas Butt lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 71715 owners corp
• John O'Donnell lot owner

The application was dismissed as the orders sought were misconceived and lacked utility, particularly because the transformer room complained of is located on property owned by the City of Sydney and leased to Ausgrid, not on common property of the Owners Corporation.

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property - whether the respondent has failed to comply with the request. Accommodation Module, s 224

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has parked vehicles on common property visitor parking spaces in breach of the by-law – whether orders are warranted - COSTS – whether the respondent should reimburse the applicant’s application fees. Act, ss 94, 185

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders 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.

CONTRAVENTION OF SCHEME BY-LAWS Act, ss 182-188

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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION; IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE – where the body corporate invalidly purported to grant a lot exclusive use of common property and permission to erect a fence – where the exclusive use resolution was subsequently rescinded and another resolution passed requiring the removal of the fence – where other lots have also been improperly granted exclusive use of common property yet have not had that rescinded nor been required to remove their fences - whether the body corporate acted reasonably in requiring the removal of the fence – whether the resolution ought to be declared void. Act, ss 35(1), 62(2)&(3)(a), 94(2), 337(2)(g), 339(5); Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, s 30.

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

COMMITTEE DECISION – where an owner of numerous lots requested the body corporate committee to record a new Community Management Statement (CMS) recording the amalgamation of those lots – where new plans and CMS have been prepared by lot owner but body corporate requires these to be reviewed by the body corporate’s solicitor at the expense of the lot owner. Act, ss 51C, 63, 94(2), 100(5)

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

COMMITTEE MOTIONS – where the applicants installed a concrete path on common property – where the committee passed resolutions about the path – whether orders about the resolutions are warranted. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, s 187

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

CONTRIBUTIONS – where the body corporate has incorrectly raised funds for the maintenance of lots that it is not responsible for – whether the body corporate should be authorised to refund those funds. Accommodation Module, ss 152, 170, 201

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

INSURANCE IN BUILDING FORMAT PLAN – requirement for each lot owner to contribute Act, s 280(2); Standard Module, ss 197, 198, 201, 206.

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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where a lot has suffered water damage thought to be caused by ingress through the front door, an external wall separating the lot from an adjacent common property garden bed, and an incorrectly installed downpipe spreader and irregular apron flashing on the roof – whether the body corporate must repair the common property and the lot. Act, ss 20, 281(1)(a); Standard Module, ss 180(1)&(2)(a)(ii), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 13031 owners corp
• Ricky Harasty lot owner

The Costs Respondent (Harasty) was ordered to pay 50% of the Costs Applicant's (The Owners) costs of the appeal due to special circumstances including late withdrawal of serious misleading conduct allegations and persistence despite prior warning of costs exposure.

INTERIM ORDERS – where committee refused lot owners’ application to bring two dogs onto the scheme – where applicants allege committee decision was unreasonable – whether to grant interim order to allow dogs to be brought onto the scheme pending further or final order. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – where the respondents installed an air conditioning compressor on common property without body corporate approval – where a general meeting resolved that the compressor should be relocated to their exclusive use courtyard - whether the respondents must comply with the resolution. Accommodation Module, ss 79, 177.

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

AGM RESOLUTIONS – whether resolutions approving legal proceedings and payment of legal fees and costs should be declared invalid – whether resolutions involved fraud on the minority of lot owners ADMINISTRATOR – where scheme is in substantial non-compliance – whether administrator should be appointed DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION – ABUSE OF PROCESS – whether application should be dismissed for being vexatious and an abuse of process

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

NUISANCE – BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is causing a nuisance or an unreasonable interference by installing and using security cameras on his lot – whether he has breached the by-laws - whether the cameras should be removed. Act, s 167

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

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES – whether meeting minutes are accurate –COSTS – whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded. Act, s 270, Accommodation Module, s 63

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the body corporate installed speed bumps and other traffic management works at the scheme – where the applicant asserts the improvements are not up to standard and submitted a motion to remedy alleged defects but the motion was not carried – where the applicant is no longer an owner or occupier in the scheme – whether the application should be dismissed Act, ss 238, 239C, 270

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the body corporate committee is making decisions without passing resolutions, notifying owners, or giving them the chance to object – where the committee is paying fees to contractors that are cumulatively above its spending limit in relation to a project that has yet to be approved by owners at a general meeting – whether interim orders should be made to halt these practices pending the final determination of the application. Act, s 279(1); Standard Module, ss 52(1)(d), 55(3), 65, 68(3), 69, 71(2)(b), 72, 73(1), 172(1)(a)&(2), 186(3).

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the applicant installed a fence – where the committee did not approve the fence - whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in not passing the motion – whether the outcome sought is still relevant or required. Act, ss 100(5), 270(1)(e)

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

REASONABLENESS – whether committee decision to refuse an application to keep an animal at the scheme was unreasonable. Act, s 100(5)

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

• Haidi Noor lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 72939 owners corp

Both the owners corporation's application to vary the costs order and the owner's application to vary the costs order were dismissed; the Appeal Panel maintained its original no order as to costs of the appeal decision.

IMPROVEMENTS AND DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondents have demolished the dwelling on Lot 2 and are in the process of constructing a new unit on the lot which will include an additional storey – where the applicants allege the respondents do not have authorisation to carry out this work – whether the orders sought by the applicants are warranted in the circumstances. Act, s 242; Standard Module, s 184

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

BODY CORPORATE RESOLUTION – whether resolution made by body corporate to allow lot owner to purchase common property was a lawful decision of the body corporate – whether procedural requirements for calling a general meeting were met – whether procedural non-compliance was substantial or could give rise to material prejudice – whether motion provided adequate notice and information – whether body corporate was required to execute a deed of transfer to implement a resolution. Act, ss 101(2), 154; Small Scheme Module, ss 22, 37, 41, 103

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

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – whether to change the financial year end date of the body corporate Act, s 283

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

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING – whether to extend the time for holding an annual general meeting. Act, s 104; Standard Module, s 83.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. \- whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. 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, s 279. Accommodation Module, ss 40, 162.

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. \- whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. 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, s 279. Accommodation Module, ss 40, 162.

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

TRANSFER FEE – where the applicant caretaking service contractor was transferred the caretaking and letting rights in 2007 – where the caretaking engagement and letting agent authorisation expired in 2021 but the applicant continued to provide the same services on a month-to-month basis until a new long-term contract was executed some five months later – where the applicant transferred the caretaking and letting rights to another contractor in 2022 – whether the applicant’s “initial contract date” was the date the rights were transferred to it in 2007 or the date the latest engagement and authorisation was executed in 2021 – whether the applicant was required to pay a transfer fee to the body corporate – whether the body corporate must reimburse the transfer fee – whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant’s costs of making this application. Act, s 280(1); Accommodation Module, ss 133(1), 135-137.

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

ACCESS TO A LOT – where the body corporate has issued entry notices seeking access to the respondents’ lot for various purposes – where the respondents have refused access – whether orders for access are required – IMPROVEMENT TO LOT – where the respondents have installed a shade sail on their balcony– whether the installation is in breach of the by-laws – whether approval required – whether the shade sail should be removed. Act, s 163; Standard Module, ss 180, 187

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