Decisions table

BODY CORPORATE DEBT – where the applicant agreed to indemnify the body corporate for costs relating to works on its lot – where the body corporate invoiced the applicant for legal costs it incurred – whether the costs were covered by the indemnity – whether the costs constituted a body corporate debt – whether the committee decision to invoice the applicant was reasonable – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 229A, 270(1)(c), 276

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

BUILDING FORMAT PLAN MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must repair the roof. PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether the body corporate must repair an owner’s ceiling because it was damaged by leaks from the roof, because it is a fire-rated ceiling and the plaster joints have cracked, or because it was damaged by trapped steam due to the failure of an exhaust fan that is part of a building-wide system. Act, ss 20, 101(2), 163, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 201(3); Land Title Act 1994, s 48C.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 92183 owners corp
• Samdora Pty Ltd builder
• 3173 Pty Ltd developer
• MS Noun Construction Pty Ltd contractor
• Ghassan Nassif party
• Elie Chahwan party
• Omar Noun party

The court dismissed the second defendant's application for summary dismissal, finding that the settlement agreement did not incorporate the terms of the draft Deed of Settlement and the plaintiff's claims could proceed to trial.

Whether the body corporate acted reasonably in making a decision. Act, s 94.

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

APPEAL – Unit Titles – Civil Dispute – leave for further evidence – consideration for tribunal at appeal stage – alleged bias by the Original Tribunal – whether relief could be granted against the owners corporation in relation to issues regarding strata manager where action against strata manager settled and discontinued – whether the appellants were forced to pay unreasonable, unnecessary, or improperly approved plumbing, fencing and tree removal costs – whether the owners corporation properly undertook work on behalf of particular unit owners – whether the owners corporation through its executive committee bullied and harassed appellants in relation to their installation of security cameras – whether conduct alleged gave rise to cause of action under Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 or Unit Titles Management Act 2011 – application of the Common Boundaries Act 1981 to fence separating common property from individual unit – whether Original Tribunal erred is refusing request to provide general interpretation of law – power of tribunal to extend the Statute of Limitations – no error of fact, law or discretion established. Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, ss 23, 79 Unit Titles Management Act 2011 ss 24, 25, 29, 30, 117, 119 Unit Titles Act 2001 Common Boundaries Act 1981 Limitation Act 1985 s 11 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 Subordinate Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2020 r 91

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

Carport - Common property - Damage to common property - Written notice requirements for an alleged contravention of scheme by-laws - Enforcement of scheme by-laws - Removal of carports from common property - General duty of strata company to control and manage the common property for the benefit of all the owners - Claim for compensation - Resolution of scheme dispute - Tribunal proceedings - Discretion of Tribunal to make orders - Turns on own facts

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

REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – changes to common property – levies – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 24, 106, 108, 232 COSTS – nature of relief requires special circumstances – no special circumstances - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 60, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) r 38

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 2341 owners corp
• P & M Sachs Pty Ltd party

The respondent's application for costs of the appeal was dismissed as the Appeal Panel found there were no special circumstances warranting an award of costs against the self-represented appellant.

INTERIM ORDER – where requested interim orders are mandatory injunctions which impose a burden on the respondent and go beyond maintaining the status quo – whether interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether the body corporate is responsible for the maintenance and operating costs of smoke exhaust fans on common property. Act, ss 20, 94(1)(a); Accommodation Module, ss 150, 152, 170, 177, 182(2).

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. 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, s279.

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

REASONABLENESS – where the applicants’ request to install a small lock box on common property was refused by the committee – whether the committee acted unreasonably in refusing the request Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, s177

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

MAINTENANCE – obligation of body corporate to maintain windows and associated fittings in boundary walls, roofing membranes and roofing structures in scheme created under a building format plan of subdivision. Act, s 152(1); Standard Module, s 180

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

REASONABLENESS – whether body corporate’s refusal to approve occupier’s painting of exterior of lot in breach of by-laws was reasonable in the circumstances. Act, s 94; Standard Module, s 180

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 93227 owners corp
• In Style Developments Pty Ltd developer
• Arden CH (NSW) Pty Ltd developer

The Tribunal made work orders against both respondents requiring them to perform rectification works identified in the Scott Schedule and Building Work Rectification Order by 30 July 2023, with the application otherwise dismissed and costs to be determined separately.

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.

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN; PROPERTY DAMAGE; INSURANCE – whether lot owner was responsible for the maintenance of a flexi hose in their bathroom; whether the excess payable under the body corporate’s policy of insurance imposes an unreasonable burden upon the applicants. Act, s 20; Accommodation Module, ss 193, 201. Land Title Act 1994, s 48C.

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is required to retile and install a waterproof membrane on a leaking balcony of a lot under a building format plan of subdivision. Standard Module, ss 180, 211(3).

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

EXCLUSIVE USE – Parking of vehicle on common property – where common property parking space let on a yearly basis – whether a grant of exclusive use required - general right of lot owners to use common property. Act ss 35, 94, 170 to 177. Standard Module ss 106, 184.

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

REASONABLENESS – body corporate’s refusal to allow discounts for a contribution payment made after due date during the COVID-19 emergency – whether application concerns a debt dispute for which adjudicator is without jurisdiction – whether committee acted reasonably in denying lot owner’s request. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 229A, 270(1)(a), 276(1), 323E; Accommodation Module, ss 154, 156

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the applicant wishes to replace the fence bordering her exclusive use area with a fence of a different style – where the applicant has security concerns – where a motion seeking approval for the change was not approved – whether the body corporate acted reasonably – whether the applicant should be permitted to make install the proposed new fence. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, s 193

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

FINANCIAL YEAR – whether to change the body corporate’s financial year. Act, s 283.

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

AGM PROCEDURES – whether an annual general meeting held in 2021 should be declared void because it was held before minutes of the committee resolution to call it were circulated, the statement of accounts was not attached to the notice of meeting, an auditor’s report was not circulated until after the meeting, the disclosure of the body corporate’s insurance policies lacked some detail, some figures on historical expenditure varied between the proposed budget and the audited statement of accounts, some proxy forms were irregular, proxy votes were used contrary to an earlier resolution of the body corporate, or due to sundry other alleged defects. BODY CORPORATE EXPENDITURE – whether body corporate funds were validly used to pay a legal invoice issued to several committee members; whether the payment is now a debt owing to the body corporate. Act, ss 240(1), 242(2)(a), 270(1)(c); Standard Module, ss 52(1)(f), 72, 73, 82(1), 83, 93(3)(a), 128(2), 129(1)(a), 160, 172(1), 175, 196.

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

Validity of committee resolutions where it is alleged a conflict of interest existed, but was not declared; whether interim order should be granted Act, s 279; Commercial Module, ss 30, 35

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

Section 35 of the Act - general right of lot owners to use common property. Whether presence of personal property on common property creates an obstruction or requires a grant of exclusive use Whether the body corporate has acted reasonably. Act, ss 94, 152; Small Schemes Module, s 99, 106.

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – where the applicant’s request for approval to keep a dog was initially refused – whether there is a continuing dispute. Act, ss 245, 276

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

BREACH OF BY-LAWS – where the respondent has installed new patio doors in a colour not approved by the body corporate – whether the respondent should submit a motion for the body corporate to consider the current colour of the doors – whether in the absence of a motion or the motion not being carried, the doors should be stained to match the other doors, windows and louvres at the scheme Act, ss 59, 94, 100, 163 182; Accommodation Module, ss 177, 202

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

Whether to appoint an administrator. Act, ss 301, Schedule 5 Item 23.

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

Whether a general meeting was properly called; whether a general meeting and resolutions passed at a general meeting are void. Standard Module, ss 87, 93.

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. 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.\_Whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. Act, s 279.

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

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY / REASONABLENESS – where the applicant sought retrospective approval for an external air-conditioning unit to remain on common property – whether the body corporate was unreasonable in refusing to grant approval Act, ss 59, 94, 182; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 177

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

Whether an order should be made 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.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the by-law is oppressive or unreasonable – whether body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to give permission to keep dog – whether order should be made given to allow applicant to keep a second dog into their lot Act, ss 94(2),100(5), 180(7)

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

Validity of general meeting motions; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing disputed motions. Act, s 94(2); Accommodation Module, ss 79, 156(2), 163, 176.

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

APPEAL – unit titles – unit owners installed wooden flooring in breach of the Owners Corporation Rules – Owners Corporation gave them an infringement notice – proceedings in tribunal for enforcement of infringement notice and compliance with the Rules – Original Tribunal ordered the unit owners to lodge new and compliant application for a hard floor, and to pay the Owners Corporation’s expenses of running the action once those expenses were quantified – appeal – whether Owners Corporation Rule 6.5 is invalid – whether the Rule is “harsh, unreasonable, or oppressive” – whether costs order was made in error – appellants applied to provide further evidence on appeal – relevant criteria – application refused – whether hearing of appeal should be de novo – appeal dismissed – substitute orders made Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 7, 15, 16, 18, 22, 48, 82 Courts and Other Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 s 116 Land Titles (Unit Titles) Act 1970 Legislation Act 2001 s 112 Magistrates Court Act 1930 s 261 Strata Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 136, 139 Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 ss 16, 31, 35, 107, 108, 109, 127 Subordinate Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2020 r 91(c) Unit Titles (Management) Regulation 2011

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 61285 owners corp
• Cameron Taylor lot owner
• The Commissioner of Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation government

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of $3,850.00 to the Commissioner of Fair Trading for contravening a Tribunal order, and to pay the applicant $2,430.80 in costs.

MAINTENANCE OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – SEWERAGE PIPES CONNECTED DOWNSTREAM FROM GREASE TRAPS- WHETHER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOT OWNER OR BODY CORPORATE- WHETHER A “DEVICE”. Act, ss 20; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 177

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

Responsibility for maintenance; whether flood insurance is required; relevance of COVID emergency legislation to the recovery of unpaid contributions, charging of penalty interest & setting of sinking fund contributions; alleged breaches of by-laws & code of conduct for committee voting members – whether application is vexatious, misconceived and/or without substance. Act, ss 185(2), 229A, 270(1)(c), 280, 297, 298, 323D, 323F, 323G, Schedule 6; Standard Module, ss 166, 197, 198, 206, 211

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

DISCRIMINATION – indirect discrimination – protected attributes – disability – association – loss suffered by the business – obstruction to clients with disabilities – whether business had ‘association’ with protected attribute – scope of ‘association’ under the Discrimination Act 1991 – condition or requirement – ‑claim for compensation – proof and quantum of alleged loss – no substitution of business as applicant in proceedings UNIT TITLES – unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of common property – no special privilege granted – substitution of owner as applicant in proceedings Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 48 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 4 Discrimination Act 1991 ss 4A, 4AA, 5AA ,7, 8, 19, 20 Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) s 6 Human Rights Commission Act 2005 ss 53, 53A, 53CA, 53E Legislation Act 2001 s 160 Uncollected Goods Act 1996 Unit Titles Management Act 2011 ss 22, 112A, 125, 129 Subordinate Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2020 rr 39, 41 Unit Titles (Management) Regulation 2011 sch 1

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in its decision not to install an independent aerial to provide/reinstate the applicant’s access to local television stations Act, ss 227, 228

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is obligated to carry out repairs to fix leaking windows on the boundary of the lot and common property – whether the body corporate not passing a motion to repair the defects to make the windows/window frames watertight and ensure they are otherwise in good condition was unreasonable Act, ss 94, 152, 186; Standard Module, s 180

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to give permission for the applicants to keep a dog Act, ss 94(2), 100(5)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the respondents should be prevented from using an area of common property until a decision is made as to whether such use contravenes an exclusive use by-law in favour of the applicants, other scheme by-laws, or poses a nuisance or hazard contrary to the Act. Act, s 279(1).

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. 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") Whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably Act, ss 94, 279.

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

FINANCIAL YEAR – whether an order should be made to change the body corporate’s financial year. Act, s 283.

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.

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – application 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.

ADMINISTRATOR – whether administrator appointment is warranted. Act, s 301

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.

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – application 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.