Decisions table

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether to make an interim order. Act, s 279

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the caretaking service contractor should be prevented, without body corporate consent, from changing the locks to an area of common property over which it has a non-exclusive occupation authority. Act, ss 94(1)(a), 95(1), 149B(1)(a), 229(2), 279(1), 318; Standard Module, s 157.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate has issued a notice of entry to a lot owner – where the lot owner says the notice is non-compliant and the decision was unreasonable – where the lot owner seeks an interim order to restrain entry – where the body corporate says it does not propose to enter the lot if entry is obstructed – whether an interim order is necessary. Act, ss 163, 279

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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – where utility infrastructure is installed on common property over which the applicant has exclusive use – whether the body corporate should be required to relocate the utility infrastructure EXCLUSIVE USE – where lot owner claims entitlement to an exclusive use car parking space but the alleged entitlement is not recorded in the Community Management Statement Act, ss 20, 66, 163, 170, 171, 177. Schedule 6 Dictionary;

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether a by-law that restricts where animals can enter and exit the scheme is valid. Act, ss 169, 180

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

Whether the body corporate has acted to enforce a by-law; whether the body corporate has enforced a by-law in the way provided under the Act; whether the respondent contravened a by-law; whether the body corporate has acted reasonably enforcing a by-law. Act, ss 94, 100, 183.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where interim order sought to restrain committee acting on resolutions to remove lot’s encroachment onto common property – where applicant lot owner has instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court to regularise the encroachment – whether committee decisions to demand possession were unreasonable or were on a restricted issue – whether adjudication is the appropriate jurisdiction to make an interim order substantively about a dispute before a Court. Act, s 279; Commercial Module, s 17

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

NOISE – whether a pool pump located on common property and servicing one lot is causing a nuisance or an unreasonable interference to the occupier of the adjacent lot. Act, s 167

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

• Gordon Wells lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 12159 owners corp

The owners corporation was ordered to perform drainage and waterproofing works to the underground garage within 10 weeks to remedy water ingress and comply with its duty to maintain common property in good and serviceable repair.

• Alexander Boutenko lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 77480 owners corp
• O Neill Strata Management Pty Ltd manager

The applicant's claim for damages for loss of rental income was dismissed as being outside the limitation period under s 106(6) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), but a compulsory strata manager was appointed for two years to address the longstanding water ingress issues in the building.

Whether the respondent had the necessary approval to carry out works on a lot and common property; whether the respondent carried out works on a lot and common property without the necessary approval; whether the respondent has damaged elements of scheme land the body corporate has a statutory duty to maintain. Act, ss 94, 152; Accommodation Module, s 170.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 20427 owners corp
• A Halliwell Nominees Pty Ltd lot owner
• Peter Irvine lot owner

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondents' application for costs, finding that rules 38 and 38A were not applicable as the amount in dispute did not exceed $30,000, and that special circumstances had not been established under section 60 of the NCAT Act.

STRATA SCHEMES – Whether a member of the committee should be removed from office, whether the Owners Corporation has unreasonably refused to make a By-law permitting the installation of solar panels on common property

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

GENERAL MEETINGS – where the applicants seek to invalidate motions passed at one general meeting and motions that failed to pass at two subsequent general meetings – whether there is good reason to waive the time limit for part of the application – whether there is a continuing dispute - whether the applicants have failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirement of an adjudicator. Act, ss 242, 270(1)(d), 271(1), 276(1)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing resolutions to repair and repaint the roof; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by choosing to repaint the roof with a dark colour. Act, ss 94(2), 279(1).

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 79749 owners corp
• Ian Lawrence Dunstan lot owner
• Kristine Margaret Dunstan lot owner
• Rory McCrudden party

The Appeal Panel dismissed the Respondents' application for costs against Mr McCrudden personally in respect of the appeal proceedings, finding that Mr McCrudden's conduct, while lacking standing, did not constitute special circumstances warranting a costs order due to early withdrawal, absence of unreasonable conduct, and lack of evidence as to quantum.

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

Special By-Law 17 was declared invalid on and from 14 July 2020 as being harsh, unconscionable and oppressive, and the owners corporation was ordered to record this declaration on the common property title.

Owners Corporations

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate or the owner of the lot is responsible for maintaining a pergola attached to the building. Act, ss 152(1)(a) and 160; Accommodation Module, ss 201 and 170 Registrar of Titles Directions for Registration of Plans, Direction 9.6. Land Title Act 1994 s 10

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

• Timothy John Chalmers lot owner
• Shellie Ann Tancred lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 19378 owners corp

The respondent's application for costs following settlement of proceedings concerning water ingress repairs was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding it inappropriate to conduct a detailed factual enquiry into the parties' conduct where proceedings had settled without determination on the merits.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has been parking in contravention of the by-laws – whether the respondent is an occupier or visitor. Act, ss 182-188

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 approval for the annual general meeting to be held late Accommodation Module s 73; Standard Module s 83; Commercial Module s 40

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

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") BUGT Act ss 73, 76, 77

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

• GS & CS Holdings Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 63227 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's application for costs following dismissal of the appellant's appeal against a Tribunal decision refusing to prescribe a by-law concerning rooftop enclosures, finding no special circumstances warranted a costs order.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has been parking in contravention of the by-laws – whether the respondent is an occupier or visitor. Act, ss 182-188

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

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING to be held outside of legislative time period. Act, s 104; Accommodation Module, ss 72(1), 73

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

BY-LAWS – whether by-law that requires hard floors to achieve an acoustic weighted standardised impact sound pressure level lower than that specified in the Building Code of Australia for residential apartment buildings is invalid. Act, ss 62, 94(2), 169, 180(5), 180(7).

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where the body corporate resolved to replace shade sails on the exterior of the building – whether the motion was invalid. Act, s 94; Standard Module, ss 180, 187, 192, 211

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether 2 lot scheme has been run informally and non-compliantly for many years – where lot owner seeks appointment of administrator for indefinite period with all the powers of the body corporate – where other owners consent but say appointing an administrator solely to call an AGM will likely resolve all the non-compliance issues – whether to appoint administrator with broad or narrow powers. Act, ss 278, 301

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

AGM PROCEDURES – whether owners were given sufficient notice of an annual general meeting; whether the AGM should be declared void because postal notice was given late and there may have been insufficient time to return secret ballot papers. Act, s 106(3)(a)(ii); Accommodation Module, ss 77(3)(d), 79, 81, 99-101, 125(2)(b); Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 38(1).

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.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether the body corporate should be prevented from denying the applicant a vote, or pursuing further recovery action, until a dispute can be resolved about the applicant’s liability for an excess payment on a claim against the body corporate’s insurance. Act, ss 229A(3), 279; Standard Module, ss 64, 67, 102(2), 203.

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

BY-LAW – whether a by-law purporting to require approval for work on a lot is valid – COMMITTEE DECISION – whether the committee failed to act reasonably in not approving components of a patio on a lot. Act, ss 94, 100, 169

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

MAINTENANCE – in building format plan – whether body corporate has failed to meet their obligations- obligation of body corporate to maintain common property Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170. Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case")[[2006] NSWSC 1157](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2006/1157.html "View Case") MAGOG Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")[[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case") Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D’Ora [](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2007/300.html "View Case")[[2007] QDC 300.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2007/300.html "View Case")

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

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether the committee acted unreasonably when voting down a motion to require dual authentication to operate the CCTV system on common property; whether the motion should be given effect. Act, ss 100(5), 270(1)(c).

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether to grant interim order. Act, s 279

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has breached the parking by-law by parking on common property including visitor carparks. Act, ss 94, 182 to 188, 276

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

• Adam Emery Kaye lot owner
• Bella Rebecca Kaye lot owner
• Robert George Kaye lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 4350 owners corp

The Appeal Panel found special circumstances warranting costs and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or as assessed.

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the respondents must comply with a request to return body corporate property – BODY CORPORATE MANAGER – whether the respondents are engaged as body corporate manager. Act, ss 14, 94, 100, 101, 119, 149B, 227, 229, 270 Standard Module, ss 71-73, 116, 133-142, 235

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.

• Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd party
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 64807 owners corp

The appeal was upheld and orders terminating the Caretaker's Agreement were set aside because clause 5(7) of schedule 4 of the NCAT Act precluded the Tribunal from having jurisdiction to determine issues that were the subject of pending Supreme Court proceedings.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 owners corp
• Pafburn Pty Limited builder
• Madarina Pty Limited developer

Application to dismiss proceedings against the developer defendant refused and plaintiff granted leave to file amended pleading to pursue claim that the developer carried out construction work in breach of statutory duties under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020.

• Diana Macleod lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 6544 owners corp

The applicant was ordered to pay 60% of the respondent's costs of the proceeding on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed, due to special circumstances including the applicant's failure to clearly identify the grounds for the application and failure to serve evidence in accordance with directions.

• The Owners Strata Plan No 79633 owners corp
• Violeta Graorovska lot owner

The Appeal Panel ordered the Owners Corporation to pay the costs of Violeta Graorovska in the appeal proceedings on the ordinary basis, finding special circumstances existed because the appeal grounds were manifestly weak and lacked substance.

• Mark Dent lot owner
• Heather Heckenberg lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 69595 owners corp

The Tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims for reimbursement of $10,186 for regrouting tiles and for a work order to prevent water ponding, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where two lot owners have installed fences on an area of common property between their lots – where the body corporate has purported to approve the fences – whether the fences amount to a disposition of common property. Standard Module, ss 170, 184, 187

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

Whether the body corporate enforced its by-laws under the Act; whether the respondents have contravened a by-law; whether the body corporate has acted reasonably. Act, ss 94, 100, 182.

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.

EXCLUSIVE USE – where the original owner purported to grant exclusive use over a garden area – whether the exclusive use was not recorded in the community management statement - where the committee purported to record a statement to give effect to the exclusive use – whether the statement is invalid. Act, ss 62, 65, 171

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