Decisions table

REPLACEMENT OF TILES ON ROOFTOP TERRACES – where the applicant alleges non-compliant tiles were installed on the rooftop terraces of Lots 40 and 42 by the body corporate after it had the roofing membranes repaired – where a slipping incident occurred on the rooftop terrace of Lot 42 – whether the body corporate is responsible for having the tiles replaced Act, ss 152, 269, 270, 271, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

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

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING – where the annual general meeting is to be held more than three months after end of financial year – whether to grant permission for the annual general meeting to be held late – whether to declare the annual general meeting will be not be invalid for being held late Standard Module s 83

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

REASONABLENESS – whether committee was empowered to authorise an improvement to common property by a lot owner – whether committee acted reasonably in putting the lot owner’s request to the body corporate at a general meeting – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in deciding not to pass the motion. 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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61618 owners corp
• JPG Investment Holdings Pty Ltd lot owner
• Conrad Corporation Pty Ltd lot owner

The appeal panel granted a conditional stay of orders requiring the Owners Corporation to consent to a development application pending determination of the appeal, conditional upon the appeal being ratified at a general meeting.

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT & COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE –Whether lot 1 should be forced to remove improvements from common property – ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE\_-\_ Whether an estoppel arises to prevent the body corporate from removing the improvements to common property by lot 1\_Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 159, 227, 228, 247, 276, 279;\_ Standard Module, ss 182(2)(a), 193(3)-(4), 201(2)(b); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4). Birstar v The Proprietors “Ocean Breeze” [[1996] QCA 110](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/1996/110.html "View Case") Bloomfield Court [[2022] QBCCMCmr 373.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2022/373.html "View Case") Oxford Court [[2022] QBCCMCmr 215](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2022/215.html "View Case")

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

COSTS – failed application for a stay of order transferring proceedings from Tribunal to a Court – Appeal Panel not satisfied order capable of being meaningfully stayed – whether r 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) engaged or whether special circumstances warranting an order as to costs established

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 77109 owners corp
• Gokani-Robins Pty Ltd party
• KCG Investments Pty Ltd party

The respondents' application for costs in relation to the appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal finding no special circumstances warranted a costs order despite the respondents being successful on the substantive appeal.

USE OF COMMON PROPERTY – whether courtyards are common property or have been allocated as exclusive use areas under a by-law – whether use of common property is interfering or causing a nuisance Act, ss 167, 170

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

UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES – where the cost of the supply of hot water is included in the administrative fund levies – where retail lots do not use the supplied hot water - whether charges associated with the cost of suppling hot water should be removed from the applicant’s levies. Act, ss 58, 196, Accommodation Module, s 200

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

BY-LAWS – where the respondents have installed artificial greenery on a visible pillar on their balcony – whether that is in breach of the by-laws – whether the greenery should be removed. Act, ss 94, 182-188

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is breaching the by-laws – REPAIRS TO PROPERTY – whether the respondent removed a deck – whether the deck must be reinstated. Act, ss 167, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 187, 211

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

• Maurice Clifford Westerweller lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 18482 owners corp

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as special circumstances were established, being that the appeal was misconceived and untenable and the appellant conducted the appeal in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the respondent.

Costs; Owners Corporations

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 was dismissed and leave to appeal refused; the Appeal Panel upheld the Tribunal's finding that the owners corporation did not unreasonably refuse to make the proposed by-law amendment for electrical works that would have retrospectively sanctioned unauthorised work that interfered with common property and a neighbouring lot.

BY-LAWS – whether by-laws permit common property car parks to be used by occupiers or only by visitors to the scheme – whether vehicles parking in some of those car parks are obstructing the common property roadway in breach of the by-laws Act, ss 94, 167, 185

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether the body corporate can hold its annual general meeting outside the relevant legislative timeframe Act, s 227(2); Standard Module, s 83

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 91016 owners corp
• Upright Builders Pty Ltd builder
• Bayone Projects Pty Ltd developer
• City of Ryde Council government

Separate question ordered to determine whether City of Ryde Council is an adjacent owner under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922; application to amend summons refused.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. REFEREE POWERS – whether Referee 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.

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

REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate passed a motion to remove two African Tulip trees at the scheme – where the applicant argues additional garden maintenance is required – whether the body corporate has acted unreasonably MOTIONS RULED OUT OF ORDER – where the person chairing the scheme’s 2022 AGM ruled Motions 14 and 15 “out of order” – whether there was a justifiable basis for making this ruling Act, ss 94, 152; Standard Module, ss 89, 98, 180, 211

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

RECOVERY COSTS – where the applicant was levied an “arrears/adjustments” fee and paid it notwithstanding his view that it was not properly owed; whether he is now entitled to have the transaction reversed. Act, ss 40, 75(7), 77(1).

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

INTERIM ORDERS – CONSENT – where applicant disputes the validity of resolutions passed at AGM – where interim order sought to restrain implementation – where new committee consents to interim order – whether to make interim order. Act, s 279

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

Whether committee resolution authorising erection of fence is invalid. 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.

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.

BY-LAWS – NUISANCE - whether the respondents are parking vehicles on common property in breach of the by-laws and the legislation. Act, ss 167, 182-188

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

AGM RESOLUTION; IMPROVEMENT TO EXCLUSIVE USE AREA – where the body corporate passed a motion to rescind an earlier approval for an improvement to an exclusive use area with a view to having the improvement removed to facilitate maintenance and ongoing monitoring of common property beneath it; whether the motion should be declared void because the body corporate misled owners; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by denying the applicant sufficient opportunity to obtain his own expert report before voting on the motion, or by deciding to revoke approval when the applicant was willing to facilitate access to the common property beneath the improvement for the purpose of the proposed maintenance. Act, ss 20, 94, 163; Standard Module, ss 116, 193.

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

BREACH OF BY-LAWS – where the respondent is storing used tyres on common property without permission from the body corporate and in contravention of specific requirements set by the scheme’s insurer – whether the respondent is in breach of the scheme’s by-laws. Act, ss 59, 94, 167, 182, 183

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate has refused the applicant permission to keep pets in Unit 5 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.

REASONABLENESS – where lot owners sought approval under by-laws to redevelop their lot, whether committee acted reasonably in deciding not to approve redevelopment. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

Both summons issued at the applicant's request to produce documents were set aside as lacking reasonable particularity and amounting to fishing expeditions.

LAND LAW — Strata title — Resolution of disputes - Meetings of owners corporation – order sought under s 24 of the Strata Schemes Management Act invalidating resolution of and election held by owners corporation – Strata managing agent — Compulsory appointment of strata managing agent.

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.

Validity of AGM where alleged deficiencies with notice, minutes, motions, committee election; whether access to body corporate records wrongfully denied; whether EGM required. Act, ss 100(4), 106; Standard Module, ss 84, 87, 113, 117, 175, 176

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

LAND LAW — Strata title — Strata managing agent – where three owner corporations of Finger Wharf development at Woolloomooloo passed resolutions terminating appointment of strata managing agent and appointing new one – where strata managing agent is different to managing agent appointed for Wharf as a whole by building management committee as a result – where clause of strata management statement (“SMS”) required owners’ corporations to “appoint and retain” the same strata managing agent as the

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

ADJUDICATOR’S POWERS – whether an adjudicator can be satisfied that the body corporate is so dysfunctional that it cannot operate properly within the statutory framework that governs it. Act, ss 276, 301 Act

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

Application for interim order to erect temporary fencing in place of removed fencing and prevent erection of fence in new location – whether warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 100(5), 163, 279; Accommodation Module, s 176

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

• Raymond Ross party
• Sarab Chami party
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 61667 owners corp

The application to extend time to lodge the application to reinstate appeal proceedings was refused, and the respondent's application for costs of the appeal was dismissed.

REASONABLENESS – where committee gave approval for owners to keep a dog, subject to a requirement to enter and exit the scheme with the dog via the carpark vehicular ramp and not via the main ground floor list lobby – whether the access condition was unreasonable. Act, s 100(5)

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

IMPROVEMENT TO A LOT – where the by-laws require body corporate approval for some alterations to a lot – where a request for approval was refused – whether the body corporate acted reasonably. IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY BY LOT OWNER – where body corporate approval required for alterations to common property – where request for approval was refused – whether the body corporate acted reasonably. Act, s 94(2) Accommodation Module\_,\_ ss 177

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicant says the respondent is parking on common property, leaving items on common property and has damaged a fence – whether the respondent is breaching the by-laws. Act, ss 182-188, 281

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

• Peter Maresh lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 13134 owners corp

The owners corporation must produce certain documents to the lot owner by 13 June 2023, but legal professional privilege was established for some documents relating to litigation advice.

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.

IMPROVEMENT TO LOT, IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY, DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – where a motion to authorise the redevelopment of the respondent’s home, incorporating a second level in common property airspace, failed to achieve a resolution without dissent at a general meeting in 2011 but was subsequently declared passed when the sole dissenting owner withdrew her objection; where the respondent has now demolished his former home and built a new two-story dwelling in its place; whether the demolition and construction were properly authorised by resolution without dissent; whether the new home is at odds with the plans arguably approved in 2011; whether the respondent must rebuild his former home or some other design as may be approved by the body corporate by resolution without dissent. Act, s 242; Standard Module, ss 114, 117, 184(2)(a), 187.

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 74442 owners corp
• Mandana Harrison lot owner
• Milo Brogan lot owner
• Carolyn Arnett lot owner
• Vasiliki Tsiavos lot owner
• Raveen Prakesh lot owner
• Saliya Gunawardena lot owner
• Petar Trajkovsji lot owner
• Sandor Jakucs lot owner
• Peter Clisdell Pty Ltd trading as Clisdells Strata Management manager
• Strata Management Centre Pty Limited trading as Strata Management Services NSW manager

The appeal against the compulsory strata manager appointment of Clisdells was dismissed; leave to appeal was granted on grounds 1-3 relating to procedural fairness but refused on grounds 4-5, and the original appointment order was upheld.

MANAGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY – whether body corporate is failing to manage common property visitor carpark reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners – whether committee members are breaching code of conduct. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 152

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

BY-LAW – whether a principal scheme by-law about the revetment wall is valid – GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to amend the by-law was defeated – whether the motion should be deemed passed. Act, ss 11, 11, 20, 44, 45, 58, 59, 62, 94, 169, 180; Standard Module, ss 180, 188, 189, 210, 211

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.

NOISE – where owner alleges noise from upstairs lot is affecting her peaceful enjoyment – whether the preliminary procedure for by-law enforcement has been complied with – whether there has been a breach of by-laws – whether the noise constitutes nuisance – whether the owner is required to install acoustic underlay. Act, s185

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

NOISE BY-LAW IN A DUPLEX – whether the respondent is in breach of the scheme’s noise by-law – whether the respondent should contribute 50% of the costs sought by the applicant to soundproof the wall dividing the two lots Act, ss 59, 94, 182, 183, 185, 270, 276, 280

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether body corporate is authorised to remove a billboard on common property in an exclusive use area allocated to a lot by ordinary resolution – whether removal of the billboard requires a resolution without dissent – whether extraordinary general meeting was validly called and notice properly given – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in deciding to remove billboard – whether body corporate should be prevented from removing the billboard pending final orders. Act, ss 94, 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 174, 183

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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – whether the circumstances give rise to a genuine emergency. Act, s 243A; Accommodation Module, s 162(1)(c)

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