Introduction

It is an unfortunate reality that many strata apartment buildings contain defects.  Many of those defects are widespread or systemic defects that affect most or all of the lots.  But how far does an owners corporation have to go to prove the existence of systemic defects?  Does the owners corporation have to organise for its experts to inspect each and every lot to prove that those systemic defects exist in each lot?  A recent Supreme Court case provides the answer to that question.

The Case

There is a strata complex containing 45 townhouses in Tweek Heads South.  The complex was built in about 2018 and 2019.  There are defects in the complex.

In 2021, the owners corporation of the complex sued the builder for damages to (among other things) cover the cost to rectify defects throughout the complex.  In the case, the owners corporation claimed that several defects were systemic and present in numerous townhouses.  One of those defects related to waterproofing defects at the outer edge of balconies above garage doors of many townhouses.

The parties’ experts agreed that the beam which spans the outer edge of the balconies on two of the townhouses suffered moisture damage due to the same waterproofing defect on the balconies of those townhouses.  However, the owners corporation’s expert did not inspect any of the other townhouses or carry out any investigations to prove that those defects existed in them.  The builder denied that those same defects existed in the other townhouses and claimed that the owners corporation had not proved its case in that regard.

Proving the Existence of Systemic Defects

The Court agreed with the builder and concluded that the owners corporation had not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the waterproofing defects and moisture damage to the beams on the outer edge of the balconies existed in any of the other townhouses.  In other words, the Court concluded that the owners corporation had not proven that those defects were systemic.

The Court relied heavily on an earlier decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No. 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612.  In that case, the owners corporation of a block of 14 units argued that no water stops had been installed by the builder in the bathrooms of all 14 units.  The owners corporation’s expert evidence only proved that there were no water stops in the bathrooms of three units.  But the owners corporation claimed that the lack of water stops was a systemic defect present in all of the bathrooms.

The Court held that it could not be inferred from the evidence that established that there were no water stops in three bathrooms that waterproofing work was incorrectly performed in other units and observed that the fact that the waterproofing contractor defectively performed work in a small number of units did not warrant a conclusion that it did so everywhere else.  Importantly, the Court concluded that the burden of proof lay on the owners corporation and that it had chosen to carry out limited destructive testing in three bathrooms only when there was no reason why it could not had done so in all of the units.

In the case involving the townhouse complex in Tweed Head South, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning in Kell & Rigby and concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to support the inference that the balcony waterproofing defect in two townhouses provided a basis for finding that the same defect existed in all 26 townhouses which have front first floor balconies.

Importantly, the Court held that it could not rely on the opinion of the owners corporation’s expert that the defect was systemic due to similar construction details being present in all townhouses because it was not known whether the waterproofing defects that had been identified in two of the townhouses were caused by faulty design or shoddy workmanship.  For all of these reasons, the Court rejected the owners corporation’s claim that the defect on the outer edge of the balconies was a systemic one that affected all such balconies and instead only accepted that the defect existed in two of the balconies that had actually been inspected and tested by the owners corporation’s experts.

Conclusion

The case provides a salutary lesson for owners corporations who wish to pursue a claim against a builder, developer or subcontractor for systemic defects.  Typically, the owners corporation will need to go the extra mile and pay its expert to inspect more than just a handful of lots to ensure that adequate testing and investigations are undertaken to enable the expert to form an opinion that will allow the owners corporation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defect in question is widespread and systemic.  In some cases, this will require the expert to inspect and undertake testing and investigations in all of the lots, which in a large strata building, can be expensive.  But that is the unfortunate price an owners corporation must sometimes pay in order to succeed in a claim with respect to systemic defects.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687

/*! elementor - v3.18.0 - 20-12-2023 */
.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Who is Responsible for Common Property Repairs Caused by Rain?

Sydney smashes another record rainfall in May 2024 (to date) with a deluge of rain over the past weeks across metropolitan and regional areas of New South Wales.

Extensive rainfall events test the patience of every strata manager resulting in numerous complaints about water leaks into strata lots.

Faced with endless demands, owners corporations need to be very clear about their responsibilities, so it’s timely to revisit some of the “fundamentals”.

In the article below we discuss…

Step 1 – Is it the owners corporation’s responsibility?

Step 2 – If it leaks has the common property failed?

Step 3 – Are damages payable by the owners corporation for common property failures?

For more information: Rain and Common Property Damage – Who is Responsible?

Warwick van Ede I BEc LLM I Lawyer

Since 1990, Warwick has specialised in strata law, property law and litigation. Recognised for his expertise, he is also a NSW Law Society Accredited Specialist in Property Law. In 2021 he was selected to serve on the Property Law Committee of the Law Society of NSW. Profile I LinkedIn

Contact Us

For all expert strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The Scenario

Mr Smith owns a residential lot in a strata building in Sydney.  The floor tiles in Mr Smith’s bathroom have cracked and are damaged beyond repair.  The building was constructed 30 years ago so matching replacement tiles cannot be found.  Is Mr Smith entitled to insist on the owners corporation re-tiling his whole bathroom so that the bathroom tiles have a uniform finish?  In this article we explore the answer to that question.

The Law

An owners corporation has a statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property and, where necessary to renew or replace any fixtures or fittings that form part of the common property under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

This duty requires the owners corporation to replace an item of common property when it is reasonably necessary to do so because, for example, the item has been damaged beyond repair: Glenquarry Park Investments Pty Ltd v Hegyesi [2019] NSWSC425.

So what happens when tiles on the floor or a wall of a bathroom that form part of the common property are damaged beyond repair but matching tiles cannot be found.  Can the owners corporation just replace the damaged tiles doing the best it can?  Or does the owners corporation have to re-tile the entire bathroom to ensure a uniform tiled finish?

Replacing Damaged Tiles

Where tiles are damaged beyond repair and matching tiles cannot be sourced, the duty of the owners corporation is to use replacement tiles that are substantially similar in appearance, characteristics, quality and amenity to the existing tiles.  This can require the owners corporation to replace a larger section of tiles to achieve substantial similarity: Selkirk v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2661 [2024] NSWCATAP 17.

However, this does not necessarily mean that, where matching tiles cannot be found, the owners corporation is responsible for re-tiling the entire bathroom.  There are a number of cases which make this clear.

The Cases

1. In Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & ors [2010] NSWSC 1507 a lot owner did work which damaged five tiles on a bathroom wall in another lot. The owner of the damaged bathroom applied for an order that the other owner compensate her for the cost to re-tile the whole bathroom because matching tiles could not be found. The Court rejected that claim and was unpersuaded that such a course was reasonable, particularly in the absence of evidence establishing that a reasonably approximate matching tile, albeit not a precise match, was unachievable. The Court allowed an amount to cover the cost of re-tiling the damaged wall only.
2. In Petropoulos v CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/as The Bathroom Exchange (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 233 a builder renovated a bathroom and an ensuite bathroom for a homeowner but built the shower recesses too small. The owner wanted the builder to re-tile the whole bathroom floor after enlarging the shower recesses because matching tiles could no longer be found and the owner was concerned that a patch repair would compromise the waterproofing membrane. NCAT’s Appeal Panel rejected the owner’s request and concluded that it was reasonable for the builder to attempt to match the tiles rather than completely re-tiling each bathroom. The builder was ordered to ensure that replacement tiles were of the same colour, dimensions and type as the original tiles, or if no identical replacement tiles were available, of a colour that most closely matched the original tiles.
3. In The Owners – Strata Plan No 74602 v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1916 an owners corporation sued a builder for defects. The owners corporation alleged that there were waterproofing defects in bathrooms due to incorrectly installed water stop angles as a result of which bathrooms needed to be completely re-tiled due to the difficulties in obtaining matching tiles, even though only a small number of tiles needed to be replaced. The Court concluded that this would amount to the complete demolition and reconstruction of the bathrooms which was unreasonable and unnecessary particularly as there was no evidence of water leakage from the bathrooms.
4. In SP 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612 an owners corporation sued a builder for various defects including waterproofing defects in bathrooms. The owners corporation asked the Court to order the builder to pay damages to cover the cost of re-tiling all of the bathrooms because matching tiles could not be found and owners were entitled to a uniform tiled finish in their bathrooms. The Court concluded that it would be unreasonable for an owner to insist on replacement of a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match could be found and installed in a place (such as an architectural break) where the joinder of the tiles would not be immediately obvious. The Court held that the floor tiles within the showers in the affected lots should be replaced, making use of an appropriate existing architectural break, and that it was not reasonable for the owners corporation to insist upon the complete re-tiling of the entirety of the bathrooms.

Analysis

These cases demonstrate that both NCAT and the Supreme Court have rejected claims for entire bathrooms to be re-tiled when a small section of tiles are damaged or defective and perfectly matching tiles cannot be found.

However, in general, the owners corporation will still need to ensure that the work it does to replace the damaged tiles achieves an acceptable aesthetic finish.  This may require the owners corporation to re-do more than just replace the damaged tiles.  It can require the owners corporation to replace, for example, one or more walls which contain damaged tiles or an entire shower recess by making use of appropriate architectural breaks.

Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts but it will often be the case that it will be unreasonable for an owner to insist on an owners corporation replacing a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match can be found to achieve an acceptable aesthetic finish.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

 

Lot Owner Claims Damages of $850 Million!

Generally we use these  bulletins for educational purposes,  but it’s getting toward that time of the year when everything goes a little crazy in the world of strata title, and so today the emphasis is on providing you with sheer relief that your strata scheme is not tied up with the sort of case in which a decision was recently made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where a lot owner commenced proceedings against the owners corporation claiming damages of $850 million!

The Strata Dispute Lot Owner Vs Owners Corporation

The dispute, between the occupant of an apartment located in Sydney and the owners corporation,  began life as a tenancy dispute, but the occupant (tenant), having failed to enlist the support of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT),  brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking among other things damages of $850 million against the owners corporation! You can imagine the insurer’s claims manager when that came through…

Needless to say, the proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW were, to use the words of the Supreme Court Judge dealing with the final version of the proceedings, “frivolous and vexatious” and an abuse of the process of the Court.  Notwithstanding this, the plaintiff lot occupant filed applications of various kinds in the proceedings, made scandalous allegations against the owners corporation’s legal representatives, court officials and even a judge of the Court.

At the heart of the lot occupant’s claim was the suggestion that the owners corporation had somehow been involved in a criminal conspiracy which allegedly caused the plaintiff loss and damage.

Finally, on the sixth application before the Court (some of those applications being interlocutory applications for stays, injunctions and applications for recusal of various judges) the entire application was dismissed and the lot occupant was ordered to pay the owners corporation’s legal costs on an indemnity basis.  This means that the owners corporation was entitled to recover from the lot occupant not only the normal (“party/party”) costs but almost all the legal costs it had expended in having to deal with this application.

Conclusion

So as we head towards the end of the year, and if you are experiencing stress due to the matters which your owners corporation has to deal with, just remember – at least you haven’t been served with a law suit for $850 million!

If you do have issues in your strata scheme JS Mueller & Co Strata Lawyers have the experience and ability to assist you in dealing with these issues, whether they are disputes relating to the operation of the committee, questions about property and renovations, dealing with adjoining land owners and more please contact us on the details below for further assistance.

/*! elementor - v3.17.0 - 08-11-2023 */
.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}

Warwick van Ede I BEc LLM I Lawyer

Since 1990, Warwick has specialised in strata law, property law and litigation. Recognised for his expertise, he is also a NSW Law Society Accredited Specialist in Property Law. In 2021 he was selected to serve on the Property Law Committee of the Law Society  of NSW.  Profile I LinkedIn

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Strata Lot Owner and Owners Corporation in Dispute

Is it legitimate for a lot owner to pressure an owners corporation not to sue her or defend legal action she takes against the owners corporation?  And what happens when the lot owner oversteps the mark?  Can the owner be held in contempt of court?  A recent NCAT case considered that very issue.

Background

There is an apartment building on Sydney’s lower North Shore which contains 6 lots.  For several years, the owners corporation and a lot owner have been in dispute about various matters.  The dispute culminated in proceedings being commenced by both the owners corporation and the owner in NCAT against each other.  The owners corporation alleged that the owner engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate, harass and deter the owners corporation from defending the proceedings she had commenced in NCAT against the owners corporation or to improperly induce a settlement of those proceedings.  The owners corporation applied to NCAT to have the owner referred to the Supreme Court for contempt or a finding that the owner was in contempt of NCAT and that she be punished and restrained from communicating with representatives of the owners corporation in certain ways.

Owner’s Conduct

The conduct of the owner which the owners corporation considered constituted contempt included threats of disciplinary action against the owners corporation’s solicitor made by the owner, communications by the owner which impugned the professional and mental capacities and motives of the owners corporation’s solicitor, contact by the owner with partners of the firm at which that solicitor worked concerning the conduct of the solicitor, contact by the owner with employers of strata committee members and references to family members of the strata committee members made by the owner in various communications.  The case of the owners corporation was that those communications by the owner impermissibly sought to pressure the owners corporation into deciding not to defend, or to settle, the proceedings in NCAT that the owner had commenced against the owners corporation.

The Law

A person can commit a contempt of court if he or she seeks to dissuade a litigant from prosecuting or defending proceedings by making unlawful threats, by abuse or by misrepresenting the nature of the litigation.  The law distinguishes between proper and improper pressure in punishing interference with litigants.  The question is whether the pressure sought to be applied in a particular case can be described as improper which, in turn, depends on all the circumstances of the case.  Improper pressure can interfere with the administration of justice and that is why it can constitute a contempt of court.

The Outcome

NCAT concluded that whilst some of the owner’s communications were inappropriate and included abusive emails that were puerile in their tone and content, the owners corporation did not prove that those communications caused the representatives of the owners corporation to be intimidated or caused the owners corporation to capitulate or settle the proceedings the owner had commenced against it.  In other words, even though the owner may have engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate the owners corporation or its solicitor to discourage them from defending the proceedings, the evidence did not establish that the owner had been successful in doing so or had deterred, or was reasonably likely to deter, the owners corporation from defending the proceedings the owner had commenced against it or from prosecuting the proceedings it had commenced against the owner.  Consequently, NCAT concluded that it had not been established that the owner committed a contempt and therefore refused to refer the owner to the Supreme Court.

Anything Else?

The NCAT case contains an interesting, albeit brief, discussion of the consequences for an owner who sends threatening, rude or offensive communications to representatives of an owners corporation.  NCAT concluded that the owner’s communications may expose her to the risk of defamation proceedings and observed that communications which attempt to threaten, intimidate or influence witnesses are unlawful under the Crimes Act 1900 and that use of telecommunications devices, such as emails, that threaten or harass any person also constitutes criminal conduct under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004.  That indicates that representatives of the owners corporation who receive abusive, rude and offensive communications from an owner are not without remedy.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 38308 v Gelder (No. 2) [2023] NSWCATEN 7.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Fire Orders and Cost Recovery By-laws

An owners corporation is only responsible for the common property in its strata scheme.  So how does an owners corporation deal with a fire order that requires it to do work to lot property?  Can a Council issue a fire order against an owners corporation to do work to lot property? If so, can the owners corporation make a by-law to recover from owners the costs it incurs doing fire safety work in their lots? The answers might surprise you.

Strata Law

An owners corporation is the owner of the common property it is strata scheme.  The owners corporation is responsible for managing and controlling the use of the common property and maintaining and repairing the common property.  Those obligations arise under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Strata Act).

An owners corporation does not own the lots in its strata scheme, and under that Act, the owners corporation has virtually no responsibility in relation to any of the lots.  This is because the lots are privately owned and the owners and occupiers of the lots are generally responsible for managing and maintaining them.  So, under the Strata Act, the owners corporation is generally not responsible for maintaining and repairing lot property.  Further, in general, the owners corporation is only able to adopt budgets and raise levies to cover expenses associated with the common property, not lot property

Fire Orders

But what happens when a Local Council issues a fire order that requires an owners corporation to carry out work to both common property and lot property.  Does the Council have power to issue that order? And does the owners corporation have power to comply with the order and do work that affects lot property?

Planning Laws

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) gives a Local Council power to order the owner of premises to do things that are specified in the order in order the promote adequate fire safety in a building when provisions for fire safety in the building are inadequate to prevent, suppress or prevent the spread of fire.  The EPA Act says that premises include a building and that an owner includes, in the case of land that is the subject of a strata scheme, an owners corporation.  Therefore, the EPA Act gives a Local Council power to order an owners corporation to carry out work to improve fire safety to both common property and lot property.

Case Law

This was confirmed by the NSW Court of Appeal as long ago as 1985.  In 1985, the Court decided the case of Proprietors of Strata Plan 159 v Parramatta City Council.  In that case, the Council had issued a fire safety order to the owners corporation of a strata building which required the owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades principally in two lots which were to be used as a restaurant.  The owners corporation challenged the order and argued that the order unfairly burdened other owners with the costs of carrying out fire safety upgrades predominately to those two lots.  However, the Court concluded that the statutory language was clear in permitting a Council to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that required work to be done to lot property.  The Court acknowledged that this meant that sometimes the costs of complying with a fire order would be shared by all of the owners even when the need for fire safety upgrades was confined exclusively to the lots of some of the owners which may seem inequitable.

But the Court considered that there were two answers to this problem.  First, if the legislation clearly allowed a fire order to require an owners corporation to do work to lot property the mere fact that might produce a sense of injustice between owners was not a reason for the Court frustrating the clearly expressed intention of the legislature and it was a matter for the Parliament to change the legislation to overcome any unfairness if it saw fit to do so.  Second, fire is a phenomenon which endangers all owners and occupiers of lots meaning all owners have a common interest in fire prevention and fire safety.  This meant that it made sense for the legislation to allow the Council to issue one fire order against the owners corporation rather than have to issue and monitor compliance with multiple fire orders against numerous parties.  Ultimately, the Court considered that it was in the common interest of all owners for the Council to have the power to issue the fire order against the owners corporation.  The Court’s decision has recently been referred to with approval by NCAT.

Recovery of Costs

If a Council can require an owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades to lot property, can the owners corporation recover the cost of performing those upgrades from the relevant owners?  There is no clear answer to that question.  Many owners corporations have introduced cost recovery type by-laws that purport to allow them to recover costs from owners in a variety of circumstances.  There have been several recent cases in which NCAT has invalidated cost recovery type by-laws.  But there are also cases where NCAT has upheld cost recovery type by-laws. Ultimately, if an owners corporation wants to seek to recover from certain owners the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in their lots, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place but there may be difficulty enforcing the by-law.

Conclusion

A Council is entitled to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that requires fire safety upgrades to be carried out to lot property.  Where that occurs, the Strata Act gives the owners corporation the right to enter the lots in order the do the work required by the fire order.  If an owners corporation wants to recover the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in a particular lot, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place for that purpose.  However, NCAT has recently raised question marks over the validity of cost recovery type by-laws so the recovery of those costs cannot be guaranteed.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Adding Further Building Defects to an Existing Claim

On 17 April 2023, the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the case of Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 90018 (Parkview), confirmed that an owners corporation can add new defects to an existing claim if the statutory warranty period in the Home Building Act 1989 (HBA) has not expired.

Supreme Court Amends Building Defects Statement of Claim

In the Parkview case, in the Supreme Court, the owners corporation sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add new defects. The Supreme Court granted permission to the owners corporation to add new defects to its existing claim.  The new defects that were added were not manifest when the owners corporation-initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court. Parkview appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Win for Owners Corporation

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court by confirming that the owners corporation was entitled to add new defects to its existing claim and the addition was not a new cause of action but part of a single cause of action being a breach by the builder of the statutory warranties under the HBA.

Parkview argued that the addition of new defects introduced a “new” cause of action, and those new causes of action were not the same as the existing cause of action that was on foot. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that in a conventional case for breach of contract, there is a single cause of action.  That cause of action is complete when a defective structure is provided irrespective of the number of ways in which those defects have manifested themselves.  The Court of Appeal said that even though the HBA has created inroads into common law principles, however, those changes brought by the HBA do not alter the nature of the owners corporation’s claim.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal said that a successor in title like an owners corporation sues a builder or a developer for statutory warranties under the HBA. The proceeding is based upon a breach of a single contract.  An amendment does nothing more than introduce further departures from the building contract that the builder and the developer had promised and that does not give rise to a new cause of action because the cause of action remains one, that is for a breach of the same contract.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the owners corporation’s amendments seeking to add new defects did not introduce a new cause of action and so the owners corporation was entitled to add them to its existing claim.

A Victory for Owners Corporations in NSW

This confirmation from the Court of Appeal is a great victory for owners corporations in NSW and it reconfirms the willingness of the judiciary to protect owners in strata schemes wherever it may be necessary.

Faiyaaz Shafiq I LLB GDLP I Lawyer

A highly experienced and respected, results driven Litigation Lawyer specialising in the areas of strata litigation, building & construction, commercial litigation, debt recovery, personal and company insolvency. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Common Property and Water Leaks

NSW has received a significant amount of rainfall over the last 18 months which has led to an increase in the number of claims made by lot owners against owners corporations in regards to common property and water leaks.

These claims can be challenging and difficult for an owners corporation to defend but a recent decision by the NSW Court of Appeal provides a glimmer of hope.

Here we share the case… A Glimmer of Hope for Owners Corporations

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Can a by-law prohibit the cooking of food including toasting bread in a lot?

In short, the answer is “no” according to NCAT.  However, there is a silver lining in NCAT’s ruling.

 

The Background

There is a large residential strata building located in Newcastle, New South Wales.  The building contains 87 residential lots.  The building was previously an aged care facility.

The building contains a commercial kitchen for shared use by the building’s occupants.  Some of the lot’s also contain a kitchenette, other smaller lot’s do not and rely on the shared kitchen.

 

The By-law

The buildings cooking by-law prohibited the cooking of food in any lot without kitchen facilities. However, a lot owner objected to the by-law and applied to NCAT for an order to invalidate the by-law.

Here we share the case and outcome… NCAT Invalidates No Cooking By-law

 

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Recent heavy rainfall in Sydney has led to an increase in compensation claims by lot owners against owners corporations due to water leakage and consequential damage.

Often, those claims are for loss of rent.

These types of claims are usually difficult for an owners corporation to defend because it has a strict duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property.

However, in a recent case, the Supreme Court rejected a compensation claim by an owner for loss of rent, providing a glimmer of hope for owners corporations.

Here we share the case and outcome Supreme Court Rejects Owners Claims for Damages

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.