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.

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. 

There are more than 85,000 strata schemes in NSW with approximately one in seven NSW residents living in strata apartments and it’s estimated by 2040 this will grow by 50 percent in Greater Sydney!

So, it’s no suprise that the number of people living in strata applying to NCAT for orders to resolve strata disputes has significantly increased by 45% over the last 5 years.

Cases related to water leaks, delays in fixing leaks and claims for compensation for rental loss have played a major role in the growth of NCAT cases.

In this article we take a closer look at the responsibility of an owners corporation to repair common property water leak damage.

The Duty to Repair

Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Act) imposes on an owners corporation a duty to:

(a) properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property;

(b) where necessary, renew or replace any fixtures or fittings comprised in the common property.

This duty requires an owners corporation to fix any defects in the common property that are allowing water to leak into a lot.

The Nature of the Duty to Repair

The duty of the owners corporation to maintain and repair common property has been considered in a number of cases.

In those cases, the Supreme Court and NCAT has said that the duty to repair common property:

(a) is compulsory;

(b) is absolute; and

(c) is not a duty to use reasonable care to maintain and repair common property or to take reasonable steps to do so but a strict duty to maintain and keep in repair.

This means that an owners corporation cannot delay any repairs that need to be carried out to fix defects in the common property that are causing water to leak into a lot.  Even if it is impossible to find contractors who are available to repair those defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying any necessary repairs to common property.

Other Aspects of The Duty to Repair

There are other aspects of the duty to repair common property that are often overlooked particularly in the case of new buildings or where a tenant damages common property.

The Supreme Court and NCAT have held that the duty to repair common property:

(a) extends to require the remediation of defects in the original construction of the building;

(b) must still be fulfilled even if the owners corporation did not cause the damage to the common property which needs to be repaired.

This means that, in general, an owners corporation cannot blame an original builder or developer for defects in the common property and refuse to fix them.  However, if the owners corporation takes legal action against a builder or developer in respect of defects in the original construction of the common property, then the owners corporation can put on hold its obligation to repair common property defects.

Further, the cases say that even if a person damages the common property, in general, the owners corporation must still repair that damage, even though it may have a right to recover the cost of that repair from the offender.  Alternatively, under section 132 of the Act, the owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to require an owner or occupier to repair damage to the common property caused by them.  It appears that if the owners corporation takes legal action against an owner or occupier in NCAT to obtain that order, that allows the owners corporation to put on hold its duty to repair the damage.

Anything Else?

The duty to repair the common property also requires the owners corporation to carry out repairs which are not for the benefit of the majority of owners.  Indeed, the owners corporation is obliged to carry out repairs to the common property that only benefit a single owner.  This means that an owners corporation cannot refuse to repair a leaking window on common property on the basis that the leak only affects one lot.

Is there an Escape Route?

There are generally two ways for an owners corporation to relieve itself from its duty to repair common property (apart from the ways we have discussed above).

First, an owners corporation can pass a special resolution at a general meeting to determine that it is inappropriate to repair a particular item of common property.  This can be done under section 106(3) of the Act but only if the decision will not affect the safety of the building or detract from the building’s appearance.

Second, an owners corporation can make a common property rights by-law that transfers its responsibility for the repair of a particular item of common property to one or more owners.  The by-law needs to be approved by a special resolution at a general meeting.  However, the by-law also needs to be approved by the owners who will be responsible for repairing the item of common property under the by-law.  Often it proves difficult to obtain the consent of those owners.

What about Compensation?

Inclement weather can cause a substantial increase in claims for compensation being made by owners against owners corporations who have failed to repair defects that have allowed water to leak into and cause damage to lot property.  Typically, those claims are made by investor owners for rental loss when the damage to their lots become so severe that the lots are uninhabitable.  But compensation claims can also cover alternate accommodation expenses if an owner occupier is forced to move out of a lot due to damage caused by water ingress, the costs an owner incurs cleaning and repairing lot property (e.g. replacing saturated carpet), experts’ fees and legal costs.  The liability of an owners corporation to pay compensation to an owner is a strict one.

This can make it difficult for owners corporations to defend compensation claims that are made by owners as a result of common property defects that allow water to leak into and damage lot property. Indeed, one Court has remarked that this puts an owners corporation into the position of an insurer.

Conclusion

Even though it may be difficult to find contractors who are able to repair common property defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying essential repairs and maintenance.  The duty to repair is a strict one and there are limited exceptions to that rule.  This emphasizes the importance of proactive and ongoing building maintenance to help avoid the problems that many owners corporations are now encountering.

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.

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.

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.

The NSW Government has announced a win for strata managers and owners corporations who have buildings under 6 years old.

You now have an avenue to pursue the rectification of any common property for major building defects, subject to eligibility.

Here we share the following:

• Key information
• What is Project Intervene?
• Who is Eligible?
• What is classified as common property?
• What is a serious defect?
• How do I register for ‘Project Intervene’?
• Related information

For specific information visit NSW Government ‘Project Intervene‘

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.

What type of resolution must an owners corporation pass in order to authorise a change to common property?

The strata legislation allows an owners corporation to replace common property with the authority of an ordinary resolution.

But the legislation also says that an owners corporation cannot upgrade common property unless it first passes a special resolution.

Where is the line drawn between replacing and improving common property?

In this article we take a closer look at this much vexed issue: Changing Common Property_ An Ordinary or Special Resolution?

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 Pays the Compensation?

When an owners corporation is ordered to compensate an owner, who pays that compensation?  The owners corporation, right?  A recent decision by NCAT’s Appeal Panel produced a surprising answer to that question.

Introduction

An owners corporation has a statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property.  This duty arises under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.  If an owners corporation does not repair defects in the common property, it will breach that duty.  Where that occurs, a lot owner who suffers monetary loss arising from that breach is able to sue the owners corporation to recover that loss.

Previous Cases

There have been a number of cases where both NCAT and the Supreme Court have ordered owners corporations to pay compensation to owners to cover their losses arising from failures to repair defects in common property that typically allow water to leak into and cause damage to lots. In those cases, owners have been awarded compensation for rental loss, alternate accommodation expenses, cleaning costs, repair costs, experts’ fees and legal costs.  But when an owners corporation is ordered to compensate an owner for those losses, who ends up paying that compensation? The answer to that question should be straightforward, right? Not so.

NCAT Case

On 30 November 2021, NCAT’s Appeal Panel handed down its decision in SP 74698 v Jacinta Investments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 387.  In that case, an owner had sued an owners corporation for (among other things) compensation to cover the owner’s losses that arose from an owners corporation’s breach of its duty to repair common property.  The owner was successful and was awarded over $250,000.00 in compensation.  NCAT also ordered that the compensation be paid through a contribution that was levied on all owners except the successful owner who won the case.  The owners corporation appealed against that aspect of NCAT’s decision (and others). NCAT’s Appeal Panel upheld the decision.  The Appeal Panel concluded that it would be unjust for the successful owner to have to contribute towards the payment of the compensation the owners corporation had been ordered to pay the owner.  This meant that the owners corporation was required to levy a contribution on all owners (apart from the successful owner) to raise the funds needed to pay the compensation it was ordered to pay.  The owners corporation was also ordered to pay the owner’s costs of the case and those costs were determined to be payable through a contribution to be levied on all of the other owners.

The Wash Up

The Jacinta Investments case provides an example of one of the rare circumstances in which an owners corporation is able impose a differential levy on some but not all owners.  The case also highlights that individual owners can be made liable to pay compensation that an owners corporation is ordered to pay to another owner to cover any damage or loss the owner suffers where the owners corporation does not fulfill its responsibility to repair common property.

The Future

The Jacinta Investments case has broader implications.  It opens the door for owners to argue in legal proceedings in NCAT that they should not be required to contribute to the payment of costs an owners corporation will incur repairing common property or consequential damage to lot property.  So, for example, where an owner sues an owners corporation in NCAT for an order to force the owners corporation to repair common property defects and water damage to the owner’s lot caused by those defects, the owner may now be able to obtain an order from NCAT excusing the owner from having to contribute to a levy that is raised to pay for those repairs.  Stay tuned because there is likely to be another chapter to this story.

Author I Adrian Mueller, Partner I B.Com LLB FACCAL.

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.

Follow Us

Linkedin


Twitter


Envelope

There has been a substantial increase in the number of electric vehicles (EV) being purchased by residents of strata buildings from cars to bikes and other vehicles.

A Recent Study

A recent study of the ‘future of EV charging in Sydney apartments’ revealed that:

• 48% of respondents plan to have an electric vehicle of some kind, within the next 5 years
• 78% were in favour of installing charging facilities
• 79% would like a user-pays arrangement for individual vehicle spaces

Does an EV Charger Require Owners Corporation Approval?

The fact is that electric vehicles need charging and that means installing electric vehicle chargers in your apartment block is inevitable.

Installation of electric vehicle chargers will normally involve changes to common property that require owners corporation approval through a by-law.

But what should the by-law cover?

There are two key issues which should be covered in the by-law.

First, who pays for the cost of the electricity that will be used by the EV charger?

Second, what happens if the EV chargers requires the building’s electricity infrastructure to be upgraded (e.g. to 3 phase power)? Who pays for the upgrade?

Get your EV By-law from the Experts 

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

• Who is responsible for paying for the cost of electricity used to charge electric vehicles
• Any necessary upgrades to the electricity infrastructure in the building

GET YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) BY-LAW NOW!

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

In a landmark ruling, today the Appeal Panel of NCAT has ordered an owners corporation to upgrade a balustrade to comply with the Building Code of Australia.

This case marks the first time that an owners corporation has been ordered to upgrade an unsafe balustrade to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

The case cuts against the long held view that the provisions of the Building Code of Australia are not retrospective and that an owners corporation does not have to upgrade an unsafe balustrade to comply with the Code.

Here we share the full article Landmark NCAT Ruling – Upgrade that Balustrade

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