Does an owners corporation have to enforce its by-laws?  If an owners corporation decides to ignore breaches of its by-laws, can NCAT force the owners corporation to take action and enforce its by-laws?  A recent NCAT case provides the answer to these questions.

Introduction

Almost every strata building is governed by a set of by-laws. Those by-laws set out rules that regulate behaviour, noise, the keeping of pets and, among other things, the performance of renovations.  The by-laws are binding on the owners corporation and the owners and occupiers of the lots.  An owners corporation has the power to enforce the by-laws if they are breached.  For example, an owners corporation can issue an owner or occupier of a lot with a notice to comply with a by-law or apply to NCAT for an order to require the owner or occupier to obey a by-law.  But what happens when an owners corporation decides to turn a blind eye to a breach of a by-law committed by an owner?  Can the owners corporation be forced to enforce the by-law against the culprit?  If so, by whom?  A recent NCAT case reveals the answers to these questions.

The Case

Suzanne Lyon owns a lot in a residential strata scheme in Wollstonecraft, Sydney.  In August 2020, the owners corporation created a common property rights by-law to give the owner of the lot beneath Ms Lyon’s lot, Mr Swanson, the right to build a pergola over his rear courtyard.  Subsequently, Mr Swanson built the pergola, but Ms Lyon claimed that the pergola did not comply with the by-law because it was too high.  The by-law had permitted the pergola to be 2.7m above the concrete floor of the courtyard but it was built about 3.21m above that concrete floor.  Ms Lyon wanted the pergola to be removed or modified but the owners corporation was not prepared to force Mr Swanson to change the pergola.  For that reason, Ms Lyon sued the owners corporation in NCAT and sought orders to require the owners corporation to remove Mr Swanson’s pergola or enforce the common property rights by-law by requiring the pergola to comply with it.

The Outcome

Ms Lyon’s claim was partially successful.  NCAT agreed with Ms Lyon that the pergola was too high and was not built in accordance with the by-law.  NCAT then considered whether it had power to make an order to force the owners corporation to enforce the by-law and require Mr Swanson to comply with it by changing the height of the pergola.  NCAT concluded that it did have that power because it could make an order, on the request of an owner, to settle a complaint or dispute about the failure of an owners corporation to exercise its functions including its power to enforce a by-law.  NCAT held that there would be a sufficient basis to make an order where an owners corporation has a discretion to exercise a function (such as its discretionary power to enforce a by-law) but decides not to do so.  NCAT considered that there was little point in the strata legislation creating a mechanism for an owners corporation to pass a common property rights by-law merely to have that by-law flouted and for the owners corporation to fail to act in the face of complaints from other owners and legal advice it had received.  Ultimately, NCAT concluded that the owners corporation’s failure to manage Mr Swanson’s non compliance with the by-law, or to make any attempt to require him to comply with the by-law, meant that an order should be made requiring the owners corporation to exercise its functions to administer the strata scheme for the benefit of the owners and in accordance with the by-laws.

The Orders

For those reasons, NCAT ordered the owners corporation to take all necessary steps to require Mr Swanson to comply with the by-law by requiring him to reduce the height of the pergola to 2.7m above the concrete surface of his courtyard.  However, NCAT gave the owners corporation 6 months to comply with that order to allow Mr Swanson sufficient time to apply to the owners corporation for approval to amend the by-law to permit the pergola to remain at a height of 3.21m above the courtyard floor and for that amendment to the by-law to be approved by the owners corporation.

Analysis

This case is one of the first times that NCAT has made an order to compel an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws.  The decision does break new ground because it was previously thought that because the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 does not explicitly require an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws but rather gives an owners corporation a discretion to do so, it was not possible for NCAT to force an owners corporation to require owners and occupiers to comply with its by-laws.  The order made in the case begs the question: What does the owners corporation need to do to take “all necessary steps” to require an owner to comply with a by-law?  Does that require the owners corporation to issue a notice to comply with the by-law against the owner?  Or does it require the owners corporation to do more and, if necessary, take legal action against the owner to force him or her to comply with the by-law?  And what if the owners corporation is successful in that legal action, but the owner ignores orders that are made to require him or her to comply with the by-law?  What is the owners corporation required to do then?  It remains to be seen whether those questions will need to be answered by NCAT in the future.

Conclusion

The case sends a message that owners and occupiers of lots who are affected by breaches of the by-laws committed by other owners and occupiers are not helpless.  They can apply to NCAT for orders to force their owners corporation to enforce the by-laws against those in breach of them.  It remains to be seen whether the decision in Lyon v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 11045 [2023] NSWCATCD 31 will be followed in future cases.

/*! elementor - v3.14.0 - 26-06-2023 */
.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.

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.

Strata apartments come with many perks for owners and tenants but of course, there’s also a downside with one of the biggest complaints being noise. As more and more people enjoy apartment living noise complaints have increased in recent times by 33%* and they continue to rise.

What are top noise complaints in strata?

• Barking dogs
• Power tools
• Loud music
• Alarms
• Construction/renovations
• Vehicles
• Wooden/tiled floors
• Children

And… some of the more unusual complaints in more recent times include:

• Tap dancing
• Assembling IKEA furniture
• Loud urinating at night is becoming one of the most common reasons for sleep-­deprived apartment dwellers
• Late night showers

What if your strata by-law neglects to mention specific issues around noise?

A well written noise by-law can go much further than the model by-law and provide residents with guidelines and time restrictions for when they can and can’t make noise. It also lets neighbours know their rights if they feel the need to make a noise complaint.

Did you know if your noise by-laws are insufficient or lacking clarity on noise related matters our specialist team of strata lawyers can assist you in updating or developing your noise by-law.

*NSW Department of Fair Trading

DOES YOUR NOISE BY-LAW NEED TO BE REVIEWED?

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.

Under a plan by the City of Sydney  all new apartment blocks will need to provide EV chargers and existing apartment blocks will need to retrofit EV chargers as the Council pushes to drive the uptake of EV’s and drive net zero emissions by 2035.

Retro Fitting EV Chargers

Many older apartment blocks are struggling with the concept of installing EV chargers, a major hurdle for the following reasons:

• The significant costs
• Navigating the current building infrastructure
• Questions about who pays for the new infrastructure?
• Uncertainty over who pays for the electricity used?
• Questions about how the EV owner is charged for electricity used and whether a by-law can introduce a user pays system for electricity costs
• Lack of information about EV charger installation
• Convincing lot owners who don’t own an EV (and may never) to contribute to the cost of installing EV charging infrastructure

The NSW Government’s promise in the upcoming elections to install 30,000 public charging stations across NSW is a positive move in the right direction.

However, in Europe more than 80% and in North America 70% of EV vehicles are charged in homes overnight.

So, perhaps the Government needs to further develop ways to assist with the uptake of retrofitting EV chargers in existing apartment blocks to ensure the City of Sydney (and other areas) reach their target of zero emissions by 2035.

In that regard, the NSW Treasurer recently announced that if the NSW Government is re-elected at the upcoming election, changes will be made to strata laws in NSW to make it easier to install EV Chargers in apartment buildings. The jury is still out on that announcement but it would be a step in the right direction.

For more information refer to these media articles:

• This is evolving quickly City of Sydney accelerates switch to electric vehicles.pdf
• Sydney council pledges to plug in to electric car trend
• 30,000 EV chargers across NSW by 2026

Do You Need an Electric Vehicle (EV) By-law?

Our specialist team of strata lawyers has drafted many by-laws permitting owners to install electric vehicle chargers in strata buildings. Our EV by-law considers and covers all essentials including these key issues:

• Who’s responsible for paying the cost of electricity used to charge electric vehicles
• Any necessary upgrades to the electricity infrastructure in the building
• Overloading the existing electrical infrastructure

DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE WITH AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY-LAW?

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.

Could puffing on a cigarette or throwing a snag on the barbie be under threat after a significant decision by the NSW Court?

In short, a couple who owned an apartment in Kingscliff, Northern Rivers NSW took their neighbours to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for smoking on their balcony.

The couple accused their neighbours of smoking on the balcony causing smoke drift which leaked through to  the couples’ apartment air vents and their doors and windows, despite them being closed.

NCAT ruled in the couple’s favour stating that the neighbours (or any guests) were no longer permitted to smoke on their balcony.

Could this landmark ruling set a precedent for future smoke drift cases and perhaps result in a statewide ban for smoking on balconies in NSW and… could the good old ‘Aussie BBQ’ also be under threat?

Do you need a ‘smoke drift’ by-law or is it time to review your ‘smoke drift’ by-law?

The full media article can be read her

DO YOU NEED A ‘SMOKE DRIFT’ BY-LAW OR A REVIEW?

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.

A recent hot topic has been the width of the powers given to NCAT to resolve strata disputes.

In particular, can NCAT resolve any strata dispute or just some disputes?

This interesting issue was considered in a recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT.

The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 gives NCAT power to make orders to settle complaints or disputes about the operation, administration or management of strata schemes or the exercise of functions of an owners corporation.  But the width of that power is not entirely clear.

For example, does the power allow NCAT to make an order to resolve any strata dispute?

Here we share a recent case outcome Can NCAT Resolve Any Strata Dispute or Just Some Disputes?

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.

A recent NSW Supreme Court ruling invalidated a by-law that required several owners corporations in a prominent strata complex in Sydney to all use the same strata manager.

The Finger Wharf at Woolloomooloo Bay is a well-known Sydney landmark. It was redeveloped about twenty-five years ago and remains a prominent Sydney landmark where many people now live, and businesses thrive.

The Finger Wharf structures, including the associated marina, are subdivided into seven strata schemes and a stratum lot. The Finger Wharf is governed by a management statement (SMS).

Up until recently, the SMS required all owners corporations to appoint the same strata managing agent as the Building Management Committee’s (BMC) agent. There was a corresponding by-law for each strata scheme.

However, at a general meeting in 2022 three of the owners corporations voted to appoint a new strata managing agent for their buildings, challenging the SMS that had existed for the last two decades without issue.

The dispute among the residents and occupants of the Finger Wharf about its management ended up in the NSW Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the SMS provision and by-law that required all of the strata schemes to use the same strata manager as the BMC was void for uncertainty and invalid.

The Court concluded that the SMS provision and by-law were void because it was not clear what functions of each owners corporation were required to be delegated to the same strata manager.

The full case details can be found here:

Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 61618 [2022] NSWSC 1246

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.

The perennial problem of owners who carry out unauthorised renovations works to common property continues to rear its head.

Here we look at the different strategies for dealing with unauthorised renovations works and explore the problems that arise when an owners corporation ignores the problem for too long.

What are the Different Ways to Deal with Unauthorised Renovations?

• The Aggressive Approach
• A Stern Approach
• Someone Else’s Problem Approach
• A Collaborative Approach
• The Ostrich Approach

In this article we look at the different approaches and lessons learned Unauthorised Renovations and how to deal with them!

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.

Building Defects – Who is Liable?

Can the director of a building company that is responsible for the construction of a new strata building be held personally liable for defects in the building?

The Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (Act) was introduced in 2020 and provides that a duty of care is owed by “a person who carries out construction work” to an owners corporation to avoid defects in the construction of the building. But who exactly is classified as “a person who carries out construction work”?

Is “a person who carries out construction work” limited to the entity that was contracted to do the work such as the builder or does it also include all persons involved in completing the project such as a supervisor, project manager and even the director of the builder’s company or the developer?

Personal Liability of Project Manager

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of NSW has found that the husband of a director of a building company was personally liable for defective building works done by the builder under the Act because he acted as the project manager and supervisor of the builder: see Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd atf Jesmond Unit Trust v DSD Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 624.

In this case, the builder was placed into liquidation and the developer brought proceedings against Mr Roberts the husband of a director of the builder.  According to the Court, Mr Roberts was a project manager of the builder, supervising construction works for the project. Therefore, Mr Roberts was found to be “a person who carried out construction work” under the Act and was found liable for the defects.

Liability of Developer

In another recent Supreme Court case, an owners corporation sued the builder and developer for damages arising from defects.

The Court found, among other things, that a developer could be held liable for defects under the Act as a person who carried out construction work.

The Court also said that under the Act, a person could be liable for defects if they could (but did not necessarily) have control of the building works: see The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659.

Conclusion

These cases have far reaching consequences for directors, supervisors, project managers, developers and sub-contractors involved in construction work who all could be liable to owners corporations for defects under the Act, even for work done up to 10 years ago (as the Act is retrospective). However, for those persons to be liable, it must be proven that they have had or could have had some control over the building works.

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.