Restricting or Banning Smoking in Strata

As of 1 May 2024 body corporate’s in Queensland are permitted to introduce by-laws that specifically prohibit or restrict smoking or inhaling of smoking products on common property of strata buildings.

As Queensland grapples with these changes, in NSW there are still many buildings that do not have a by-law concerning smoking, even though they are permitted to do so. This has raised questions such as:

• Is it possible to stop people smoking in a strata building without a by-law that bans smoking?
• If it is possible to stop smoking without a by-law, is it still necessary or desirable to have a by-law that bans or restricts smoking and, if so, why?

Banning Smoking without a By-Law

Somewhat surprisingly, it is possible to stop residents of a strata building smoking in their lots or on common property without a specific by-law that prohibits smoking.  Section 153 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 prohibits residents from using or enjoying their lots in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to another resident. There have been several cases over the past years in which NCAT has made orders prohibiting residents in strata buildings from smoking on the basis that smoke caused by smoking constituted a nuisance to other residents in contravention of section 153.

NCAT Smoking Cases

In May 2019, a lot owner, Martin Gisks, succeeded in obtaining an order from NCAT prohibiting the resident of another lot in his building smoking on her balcony or in her bedrooms and requiring that resident to close all exterior doors and bedroom and bathroom windows when smoking inside her lot (Gisks v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 6743 [2019] NSWCATCD 44).

In October 2022, lot owners in a different building, Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright, obtained orders from NCAT prohibiting the owners of another lot smoking or permitting any other person to smoke tobacco products on the balcony of their lot, and prohibiting them from permitting smoke from any tobacco product to be emitted from the interior of their lot into the lot of Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright (Pittman v Newport [2022] NSWCATCD 173).

More recently, in June 2023, an owner in a strata building, Haydn Shaw, obtained an NCAT order prohibiting the owner and resident of another lot permitting the smoking of tobacco products in the courtyard of their lot (Shaw v Euen [2023] NSWCATCD 68).

In each case, NCAT concluded that the smoke caused by the smoking of cigarettes or tobacco products by residents constituted a nuisance which interfered with the amenity of other residents in contravention of section 153 of the Act.  It was on that basis that NCAT made orders prohibiting or restricting smoking in each of these cases.

Is a By-Law Banning Smoking Desirable?

These NCAT cases beg the obvious question:  does an owners corporation need to bother introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking?  The answer is “Yes” if the owners corporation wants to make it easier to ban or restrict smoking in its building.

This is because without a by-law that bans or restricts smoking:

• the owners corporation may not have standing to apply to NCAT for orders to prohibit residents smoking in a way that causes a nuisance to other residents because the owners corporation itself has not suffered from that nuisance (The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2245 v Veney [2020] NSWSC 134); and
• there is a need to prove that not only particular residents are smoking but also that the smoke from cigarettes or tobacco products has caused a nuisance to other residents by unreasonably and substantially interfering with the use and enjoyment of their lots (something which may be difficult to do).

In other words, if a by-law exists that bans smoking the owners corporation is able to enforce that by-law and to succeed it does not need to show that smoke from cigarettes constitutes a nuisance to other residents.  The owners corporation just needs to prove that particular residents are smoking in breach of the by-law.  That is much easier to do.

Conclusion

It is possible to stop residents smoking without a by-law that bans smoking.  However, it is much more difficult to do so because it requires proof that the smoking causes a nuisance to other residents.  And, there is real doubt that an owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to stop residents smoking in those circumstances.

Introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking overcomes those problems, gives the owners corporation the right to take steps through NCAT to prevent residents smoking and makes it easier for the owners corporation to win the case and put an end to smoking in its building.

DO YOU NEED A BY-LAW THAT PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS SMOKING? CLICK HERE NOW!

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.

As the world we live in drastically changes, people are looking for more economical and sustainable ways of living.

Many families (and others) are downsizing and moving into strata apartment living which often means they need to also review their current transport options.

The parking incident that raised many questions!

In a recent incident a lot owner was sent a notice from their owners corporation to remove a kayak from their parking lot. The kayak was stored neatly in front of their motor vehicle within the confines of their parking space.

The owners corporation said the kayak was not a vehicle so therefore it had to be removed or the owner would incur a fine. The owner argued that the kayak was a vehicle and therefore could be kept in the parking space according to the building’s by-law for parking.

• Firstly, is a kayak classified as a non-motorised vehicle?
• What if the kayak was strapped to roof racks on the motor vehicle (providing the height allowed for this), would the owner have been asked to remove the kayak?
• What if it was a non-motorised bicycle or scooter that was parked on the parking lot?
• What if it was an e-bike or an e-scooter – are they classified as motor vehicles?
• The list goes on: row boats, dinghies, skateboards, rollerblades etc all types of transport.
• Should the by-law have stipulated (among other things) motorised and non-motorised vehicles?
• What is legally deemed as a transport vehicle and what is not?

As government and local councils push communities to reduce carbon emissions – the question that must be asked is: do we need to now allow for other forms of transport vehicles with lower emissions to be parked on parking lots within strata complexes?

Do you need to review your parking by-law?

The lesson here is to ensure that your parking by-law is current and in-line with today’s ever-changing world.

Most likely your parking by-law is out of date and requires a review.

For a parking by-law review speak to our specialist strata lawyers here now.

YOUR PARKING BY-LAW NEEDS A REVIEW CLICK HERE NOW!

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.

As Summer Heats up so do the air conditioning complaints!

Summer is here and it’s predicted to be a hot summer season with temperatures in the high 30’s and some days even reaching 40’s.

It’s the time of year when lot owners and tenants look to install and use air conditioners to relieve themselves from the oppressive heat.

Did you know air conditioners are high on the list for strata disputes?

Air conditioners can cause all types of complaints in strata such as:

• What if the noise of the unit upsets the peace and quiet?
• Who’s responsible for maintenance?
• What if the unit leaks water into another apartment?
• Is it in line with the appearance of the lot?
• and much more!

A Good By-law Addressing Air Conditioning Units is Important

For these reasons it’s important that you have a good by-law in place regulating the installation and use of them  that covers the following (and much more):

• What type of air conditioning equipment is appropriate?
• Where can the unit be installed?
• Will council approval be required?
• Will owners corporation approval be required?
• Will it be installed on common property?
• Will a by-law be required for individual lots, or can it be covered under a general by-law?

A good by-law will ensure that your summer is as stress free as possible and reduces (and hopefully eliminates) any strata disputes in relation to air conditioners.

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.

Are Visitor Parking Spaces Exempt from Levies?

A recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT has re-examined the question of as to whether visitor parking spaces in a residential strata complex qualify for exemption from levies which may be payable pursuant to the Parking Space Levy Act 2009 (NSW).

NSW Government Introduces the Parking Space Levy Act

An attempt to discourage or reduce traffic congestion in certain key Sydney business districts, in 2009  the NSW Government introduced the Parking Space Levy Act , the effect of which was to make a levy payable by landowners  on certain off-street parking spaces located in specified districts.

In broad terms, the districts to which the legislation currently applies are:

• Sydney CBD;
• North Sydney/Milsons Point;
• Bondi Junction;
• Chatswood;
• Parramatta; and
• St Leonards.

There are designated maps which set out in detail the parts of those areas to which the levy applies, and the levy has two categories. Category 1 (Sydney CBD and North Sydney/Milsons Point) has the highest levy rate, and  the balance of districts are designated as Category 2, for which a lower rate is payable.

The relevant legislation also contains exemptions, one of which is set out in Regulations 7 & 8 of the Parking Space Levy Regulation 2009 (the Regulation). One of the exempt purposes is where the parking spaces are for “the parking of motor vehicles by persons who reside on the premises or an adjoining premises”.

NCAT Disputes Visitor Car Space Assessment

The premises in question in this case were located in Milsons Point, and were therefore designated as “Category 1”. The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue made a determination that the strata scheme in Milsons Point was liable to pay a car space levy on 5 of 7 car spaces which were set aside for visitors to the property. The strata scheme itself is a mixed commercial and residential building containing 33 residential apartments and 7 commercial suites.

An application was made by the strata scheme to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) disputing the assessment made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue on the basis that the visitor car spaces in question should have been considered as “exempt” parking spaces.

Specifically, the strata scheme’s original application to NCAT argued that the exemptions described in Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations for “the parking of motor vehicles by persons who reside on the premises or an adjoining premises” should include parking spaces set aside for visitors of persons who reside on the premises.

The original decision of NCAT was that visitor car spaces were not exempt. The owners corporation then appealed the original NCAT decision in relation to this issue to the Appeal Panel.

The Decision of the Appeal Panel

The Appeal Panel rejected the proposition that parking for guests of residents was intended to be covered by the relevant exemption.

The Appeal Panel noted that Regulations 7 and 8 contained a number of specific exemptions including for parking of contractors and consultants providing services on the premises. The Appeal Panel argued that  if the Parliament had intended for an exemption to be granted for the parking of “guests”, then it could have included that exemption explicitly within those Regulations, which it did not.

The Appeal Panel noted that limiting the exemption in this way was also consistent with the aims of the legislation, being to discourage car use in the area. The Appeal Panel found that the parking spaces in question were for a combination of exempt and non-exempt purposes, and therefore not “exclusively” set aside for an exempt purpose.

The Appeal Panel therefore upheld the original decision of NCAT, and the original decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to apply the levy to these car spaces was affirmed.

The Conclusion

Although the Act and the Regulations apply only to a limited set of areas within Sydney, it is within the power of the Government to expand the list of areas to which that levy will apply in the future.  In light of current public policy settings regarding driving and motor vehicle use generally, the exercise of that power to expand the list of leviable areas in Sydney must be considered a possibility.

Owners Corporations within Category 1 and Category 2 areas should be aware of their obligations under the Act and the Regulations,  and the applicability of those legislative instruments to their particular circumstances.

Need Help with a Parking Issue?

We are happy to provide guidance to strata schemes who seek interpretation of the application of any Ruling in relation to levies of this kind or simply require general parking advice in relation to the issue.

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.

Keeping a pet in some strata schemes can be costly when schemes charge an additional fee or bond for the joy of having a pet!

The good news is that the NSW Government as part of the reform has labelled these fees and bonds as being costly, unreasonable, and unnecessary as lot owners already pay levies.

Owners already pay for the upkeep of their strata schemes including the cost of insurance to cover damage to common areas as part of their levies.

The reform is part of phase one of the NSW Government’s review to ensure we have a more transparent and fairer strata system.

This week the NSW Government will move forward on critical reforms implementing changes to ensure the system is fairer and transparent… https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/critical-reforms-to-strata-laws

So, will there be a blanket ban on pet fees and bonds under the reforms for strata laws governing community living arrangements?

ARE YOUR PET BYLAWS CURRENT? DO YOU NEED A REVIEW?

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 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.

Lot Owners who Breach By-laws

An owners corporation is able to take legal action in NCAT against an owner who breaches its by-laws.

There are typically two types of legal action the owners corporation can take against the owner.

First, the owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to require the owner to comply with the by-laws or to stop breaching them.  Second, the owners corporation can ask NCAT to impose a monetary penalty on the owner if the owner has breached a by-law after being given a notice to comply with the by-law.

However, what happens when an owners corporation seeks both an order to stop an owner breaching a by-law and a penalty in the same legal action?  Can NCAT do both at the same time?

A recent decision by NCAT’s Appeal Panel sheds light on that issue.

Introduction to By-law Breach Case

Tania Brown lives in a unit in a strata building in NSW.  Ms Brown keeps dogs in her unit.

The building is governed by a by-law which requires owners and occupiers of lots to obtain owners corporation approval to keep dogs in their units.  The owners corporation alleged that Ms Brown had not obtained any approval to keep her dogs and that her dogs barked and caused a nuisance to other residents.

On 3 December 2021, the owners corporation issued Ms Brown with two notices to comply with by-laws.

The first notice alleged that Ms Brown had breached the noise by-law by allowing her dogs to constantly bark which disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of other residents.

The second notice alleged that Ms Brown had breached the keeping of animals by-law by having 4 large dogs within her unit without the approval of the owners corporation.

Prior to those notices being issued, Ms Brown had agreed to remove the dogs by 1 December 2021 in a settlement agreement made at a mediation conducted by NSW Fair Trading.

By-law Breach Legal Action

The owners corporation alleged that Ms Brown did not remove the dogs contrary to the settlement agreement and had continued to breach the by-laws after it issued the two notices to comply against her.

Consequently, the owners corporation commenced legal action in NCAT against Ms Brown.  In that legal action the owners corporation sought an order for Ms Brown to remove her dogs and a further order that Ms Brown be penalised $1,100.00 for contravening the by-laws after the notices to comply were issued against her.

In July 2022, the NCAT case was listed for a hearing at which the owners corporation was successful and orders were made, by the consent of Ms Brown and the owners corporation, to require Ms Brown to pay an $1,100.00 penalty to the owners corporation and remove all but one dog from her unit.  The order imposing the penalty would not apply if Ms Brown removed the dogs by 19 July 2022.

The Appeal Against NCAT

Shortly afterwards, Ms Brown filed an appeal against the orders made by NCAT, even though she agreed to those orders being made.  Despite that, Ms Brown’s appeal was successful.

The orders made by NCAT were set aside and the case was sent back to NCAT for a further hearing.

A Mixed Bag?

During the course of the appeal, NCAT’s Appeal Panel considered whether it was possible for an owners corporation to seek in the same proceedings in NCAT both an order to require an owner to comply with a by-law (in this case by removing dogs from a unit) and a further order for a monetary penalty to be imposed on the owner.

The Appeal Panel concluded that this was not possible essentially for three reasons.

First, different procedural rules apply to a mixed application seeking general orders and the imposition of a penalty because, for example, the rules of evidence do not apply to an application for general orders but, in contrast, the rules of evidence do apply to proceedings for the imposition of a penalty.

The Appeal Panel considered those different rules indicated that the Legislature intended that separate proceedings would need to be brought by an owners corporation to seek general orders and the imposition of a penalty.

Second, the Appeal Panel held that procedural fairness could not be afforded to the parties in mixed proceedings where different rules of evidence applied and a party could claim civil penalty privilege when giving evidence in proceedings for the imposition of a penalty but doing so would disadvantage that party in proceedings seeking general orders for compliance with the by-law.

Third, the Appeal Panel noted that different appeal rights exist in relation to an application for general orders and an application for the imposition of a penalty.  General orders can be challenged by way of an internal appeal to NCAT’s Appeal Panel whereas an appeal against a penalty needs to be filed in a Court.

The Appeal Panel concluded that the Legislature did not intend that an owner would be required to lodge two appeals to different bodies to challenge general orders and penalties made against him or her in the same proceedings in NCAT.

It was for these reasons that the Appeal Panel ordered the owners corporation to start again in NCAT and to only seek a general order to require Ms Brown to remove all but one of her dogs, not a penalty.

Conclusion

The decision of the Appeal Panel means that an owners corporation can no longer file one application in NCAT seeking both orders to require an owner or occupier of a lot to comply with a by-law and for a penalty to be imposed on the owner or occupier.

Instead, the owners corporation will either need to decide whether it wants to seek general orders or a penalty and commence one set of proceedings to seek either remedy or alternatively file two separate applications in NCAT, one seeking general orders for compliance with the by-law and the other seeking the imposition of a penalty.

No doubt commencing two separate proceedings would add to the time, cost and complexity of the case and quite possibly render it commercial unviable for an owners corporation to seek both general orders and a penalty against an owner or occupier who breaches its by-laws.

Case Name: Brown v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 82527 [2022] NSWCATAP 328

/*! elementor - v3.15.0 - 20-08-2023 */
.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.

Strata Disputes – Under the Ground up in the Air and Everywhere in Between 

Strata disputes and common property come in all shapes and sizes, especially when dealing with neighbouring property owners.

As owners of real property, owners corporations find themselves dealing with the owners of neighbouring land in a multitude of circumstances.

Neighbouring Land Disputes

• Easements
• Ground Anchors
• Cranes
• Scaffolding
• Trees, Fences and Walls
• Law of Nuisance
• Damage and Liability
• And even, landslides

You’ve probably had reason to deal with one or more of the above – but if you haven’t, then get ready, because you almost certainly will at some point in time!

Read on… Common Property and Dealing with Adjoining Owners

DEALING WITH NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY – DO YOU NEED AN EASEMENT?

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.