Decisions table

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate can charge committee members a fee for copies of records – whether the body corporate can question the purpose of a committee member’s request for access to records. Act, ss 204, 205; Accommodation Module, ss 221, 222

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.

BY-LAWS – where the applicant claims his neighbours’ garden contravenes a by-law and their air conditioner breaches body corporate policy; whether the body corporate must enforce the by-laws. Act, ss 94(1)(b), 182.

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

• BNK Café Restaurant Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 33676 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appellant's application for costs of the appeal, finding no special circumstances warranted a departure from the general rule that each party bear its own costs.

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

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 MOTIONS – where the body corporate resolved to replace some windows and sliding doors on lots and undertake waterproofing – whether the body corporate is responsible for the work – whether motions about the work are valid. Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a dog should be permitted at the scheme. Act, s 270(1)(e).

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.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS – whether a committee resolution conflicted with a general meeting resolution - whether a committee resolution was within the power of the committee – whether the decisions were reasonable - whether committee members had a conflict of interest. Act, s 100, Standard Module, ss 52, 66

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 84716 owners corp
• Delmont Purcell lot owner

The lot owner was found to have breached notices to comply with by-laws 5 and 7, and ordered to pay a penalty of $1,320 (8 penalty units for by-law 5 breach and 4 penalty units for by-law 7 breach).

EMERGENCY – where plumbing failure causing property damage – where quotation is above the limit for committee spending – whether to order that committee spending is authorised. Act, s 243A; Standard Module, s 172(1)

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

• Rebecca Ann Beitzel lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 67504 owners corp
• Richard Christian lot owner
• Heidi Danilewitz lot owner
• Cindy Radomsky lot owner
• Q's Investment (Int) Pty Ltd lot owner
• Harry Haber lot owner
• Jaffa Haber lot owner

The application for orders directing the owners corporation to consent to construction of a swimming pool and to prescribe a common property rights by-law was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish that the owners corporation unreasonably refused consent.

REASONABLENESS– whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing permission for the installation of solar panels on common property – whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, s94(2)

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

INTERIM ORDERS – where lot owner alleges committee decided to reduce the number of access fobs available to him and restrict his access to common property – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(1), 100(5); Accommodation Module, s 44

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in resolving to remove trees on common property. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163

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

• Mei Lan Roberts lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 4393 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's application for costs and ordered each party to pay their own costs of the appeal, finding that rule 38 did not apply and no special circumstances warranting an award of costs existed.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law attaching to a lot giving the owner rights over an identified part of common property in the basement car park failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 279(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5

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

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law attaching to a lot giving the owner rights over an identified part of common property in the basement car park failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, ss 55, 170, 171, 279(1)(b), 276(3), Schedule 5

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions that purported to direct the applicant’s conduct as committee chairperson were invalid. GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether general meeting minutes that failed to record various statements and procedural motions were not full and accurate and should be amended. BY-LAWS – whether a communication by-law is invalid because some terms are not defined, it conflicts with the body corporate’s contracts with service providers, it is at odds with the Act, or it diminishes owners’ ability to raise legitimate issues with the body corporate. Act, ss 59(2), 94(1), 95(1), 100(5), 180(1); Accommodation Module, ss 76, 83(1), 107.

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

UNIT TITLES – granting of special privilege to the exclusive use of common property – seeking order that the Corporation unreasonably refused to make special privilege rules – operation of special privilege granted terminated by legislation – Corporation decision not to renew special privilege – whether Corporation acted unreasonably in opposing motions to grant special privilege – the operation of section 129(1) and section 129(2) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 – finding that it was not unreasonable for the Corporation to oppose motions – whether section 129(1)(d) provides wide-ranging powers to the ACAT to order payment of money but only up to the particular limit of $1,000 – application is dismissed Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 18 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 20, 30, 31, 112A, 112B, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Republication 13 s 167 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Republication 8 s 22 Units Titles Legislation Amendment Act 2020 s 112 Subordinate Legislation cited: Territory Plan 2008 – 11.1 Parking and Vehicular Access General Code, ss 3.1.5, 3.2.5, Sch 1 – Residential ones Territory Plan 2008 Republication 168 – 3.4 Multi Unit Housing Development Code

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.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether resolutions purportedly passed at a general meeting were valid – whether the motions should have been ruled out of order. Act, ss 62, 94, 100; Commercial Module, ss 30, 56

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.

MANTENANCE; DEBT – where the body corporate repaired two water leaks within a lot that it claims were the owners’ responsibility; whether the owners must reimburse the body corporate’s expenditure on repairs, water, and conciliation and adjudication application fees. Act, ss 20(b)(i), 229A(3)&(7), 280; Standard Module, ss 180(1), 211(5), 212.

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where a motion to reimburse the owner of Lot 2 for works he carried out at the scheme was considered at a recent extraordinary general meeting and passed – where the applicant submits the body corporate’s decision to pass the motion was unlawful and unreasonable – whether there are urgent circumstances to warrant granting an interim order in this case Act, ss 94(2), 279; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 170, 177

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

The appeal was allowed; the order dismissing the claim for damages for loss of rent was upheld as time-barred, but the issues of whether the lot owner is entitled to a work order and damages other than for loss of rent were remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where the committee refused permission for the applicants to keep a pet dog in the scheme – whether body corporate failed to act reasonably - whether approval should be given. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 276

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions involving proposed spending above the major spending limit required two quotes 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, s 163

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where permission to keep two dogs in a lot was refused by the body corporate committee pursuant to the scheme’s pet by-law; where the applicant intends to relocate to the scheme soon; whether the committee acted unreasonably when refusing to permit the dogs at the scheme; whether the dogs should be permitted on an interim basis until the application can be determined. Act, ss 100(5), 279(1).

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

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

The appeal against a costs order awarded to the respondent in connection with a dismissed application for interim relief was dismissed, with the Appeal Panel finding the Tribunal's reasons for awarding costs adequate and the discretion to award costs not having miscarried.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 10717 owners corp
• Darryl William Mantell lot owner
• Diane Louise Mantell lot owner

The Tribunal dismissed the owners corporation's application to remove a bench from common property but granted the lot owners' application for a common property rights by-law relating to the subject area, finding the owners corporation's refusal of the by-law was unreasonable.

• Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd t/as Central Sydney Realty contractor
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 64807 owners corp

The Court of Appeal dismissed the caretaker's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction to terminate the caretaker agreement under s 72 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

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

The Tribunal dismissed both applications finding the Owners Corporation did not unreasonably refuse consent to install air-conditioning condenser units on the balcony returns as the proposed works were not compliant with Special By-law 5 and the by-law itself was not unjust.

• Gary Mark Colman lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No. 61131 owners corp

The Lot owner was ordered to pay the costs of The Owners Strata Plan No. 61131 on an ordinary basis (not indemnity basis) as the unsuccessful party in the substantive proceedings.

• Rosa Camilleri and Sandra Peer lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 4987 owners corp

The application was dismissed as the tribunal was not satisfied that the owners corporation unreasonably refused consent to the lot owners' proposed structural renovation works involving removal of load bearing walls in unit 14.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp
• Mr Cho party

The application for recusal of the judge was refused as the allegations of bias and private communications were found to be completely unfounded and lacking any logical connection between asserted facts and feared deviation from impartial decision-making.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp

The motion to set aside orders made on 17 July 2023 was dismissed; Campbell J held that UCPR 36.15 does not permit review of orders for error in merits and that the proper avenue to challenge the earlier decision is the Court of Appeal.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp
• Joe Cho party

Documents filed in contravention of a stay order were removed from the court file and returned to the applicant, and a notice to produce was set aside.

• Akhil Sethi lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 93392 owners corp

The plaintiff was ordered not to take any further steps in the proceedings without complying with prior orders or obtaining leave, and was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis due to multiple unsuccessful applications and procedural breaches.

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION; Home Building – breach of statutory warranties – where work involved the conversion to residential use of a commercial space – scope of contract -effect of implied warranties.

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

LAND LAW---Strata scheme---s 237 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)---Appointment of compulsory strata manager---Where compulsory strata manger already appointed---Whether circumstances justify a further appointment of compulsory strata manager---Whether circumstances justify extension of the existing order.

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondents have contravened the scheme’s by-laws by storing items on common property – whether the respondents have interfered or permitted interference with utility services or utility infrastructure – whether the respondents have used the common property in a way that causes a hazard. Act, ss 166, 167, 182 and 184

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when choosing to paint the common property roof “basalt” rather than “shale grey”, where the former is expected to make the applicant’s lot hotter. Act, s 94(1)(a) & (2).

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

BY-LAWS – NUISANCE – whether the respondents have contravened the by-laws and legislation by creating excessive noise and by spraying water on other occupiers using common property using a water apparatus attached to their lot or common property; whether the preliminary procedure for by-law contravention disputes has been followed. Act, ss 167, 183, 184, 186

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

• Canterbury-Bankstown Council government
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 71808 owners corp

The respondent was convicted of three counts of contempt for failing to comply with consent orders requiring provision of fire safety certificates and upgrade strategy, and ordered to pay fines totalling $11,250 plus ongoing monthly penalties of $2,000 per charge until compliance.

VALIDITY OF AGM, APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES Act, ss 227, 228, 276, 284, 301

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 and its directions have failed to comply with the request. Standard Module, s 235

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