Decisions table

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.

Owners Corporations

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. lot owner

The Appeal Panel made a costs order requiring the appellant to pay 20% of the respondent's costs of the stay application on the ordinary basis, finding special circumstances existed due to the appellant's late service of material but not warranting full indemnity costs.

INTERIM ORDER – whether to grant an interim order. Act, s 269

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 269

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

Whether emergency circumstances exist. Act, ss 227, 229, 243A, 276, 312; Accommodation Module s 81.

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

Responsibility for cost of making core hole penetration in common property roof fire compliant. Act, s 280; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 177

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

GENERAL MEETING – NOTICE PERIOD – whether to make order declaring that a general meeting in an emergency will not be invalid for being called on short notice. Act, s 243A; Accommodation Module, s 81

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

• Lewis Elliot Franklin lot owner
• The Owners—Strata Plan No. 87497 owners corp

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of by-law 25 prohibiting cooking in lots were declared invalid as harsh, unconscionable and oppressive, being an unjustified blanket ban on cooking that limits fundamental property rights without protecting other occupants' use and enjoyment.

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

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

Whether the body corporate maintained common property in good condition; whether the proposed spending is above the relevant limits for committee spending; whether the spending is required to meet an emergency. Act, ss 152, 243A; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163, 170.

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 19341 owners corp
• Brian Charles Dehlsen lot owner

The Tribunal prescribed a common property rights by-law for the lot owner's 2005 renovations and ordered the respondent to waterproof the planter boxes within 3 months, but declined to find the work caused water penetration into lot 2.

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate failed to provide the applicant with records – GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether a meeting was validly called. Act, ss 205, 270(1)(e); Accommodation Module, ss 72, 82, 83

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

RECORDS – whether the body corporate has failed to comply with an obligation to provide access to records Act, ss 100(5) and 205; Standard Module, ss 231 - 233

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

EXCLUSIVE USE – whether the reallocation of an exclusive use car parking space was valid – whether the space should be allocated to the applicant – whether there is an encroachment onto a car parking space allocated to the applicant – whether a wall and pipework should be removed – MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate has failed to maintain common property – TIME LIMIT – whether the time limit applying to part of the application should be waived - COSTS – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 242, 250, 270; Accommodation Module, s 170

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders warranted. Act, s 279

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

STATUTORY EASEMENT – REASONABLENESS – where a lot owner proposed to install solar panels on the common property roof for the benefit of their lot – whether a statutory easement over common property for utility infrastructure to supply utility services exists and can be exercised by the lot owner – where the installation requires an ordinary resolution – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing approval. Act, ss 68, 69, 94, 159; Standard Module, s 187

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

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.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to give permission 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.

Whether the committee had power to decide a request to install shutters; whether the body corporate and the committee acted reasonably. Act, ss 94, 100.

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