Smart doorbells, Ring cameras, and digital peepholes have fast become standard home security upgrades for modern apartment living.

However, when a device mounted to an apartment door continuously records the shared hallway, captures a neighbour’s entry, or records private corridor conversations, what feels like personal security to one resident quickly becomes an immediate breach of privacy to another.

For Strata Committees and Strata Managers, these popular gadgets are sparking complex resident disputes. Navigating the boundary between an owner’s desire for safety, the rules governing common property modifications, and strict state surveillance legislation requires a clear, proactive legal framework.

The Legal Trilemma: Common Property, Privacy & the Law

When a resident installs a smart camera outside their front door, the conflict falls across three legal intersections:

1. Common Property & Model By-Law Deficiencies

Most standard model by-laws such as legacy rules covering ‘Damage to Common Property’ or minor cosmetic changes were never drafted to address digital recording devices.

• Mounting a device to an entrance door frame or outer wall involves fixing equipment to common property.

• Standard model by-laws lack clear boundaries regarding field of view, continuous recording, or audio capture over shared spaces.

2. The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

Under Section 8 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), it is generally an offence to knowingly install or use an optical surveillance device on property without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupier if it captures private activity.

Furthermore, capturing audio of private conversations in common hallways without the consent of all parties involved can trigger severe statutory penalties.

3. Nuisance & Unreasonable Interference

Under Section 153 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), an owner or occupier must not use or enjoy their lot, or common property, in a manner that causes a nuisance or unreasonable interference with another resident. A camera pointed directly at a neighbor’s front door or living area often constitutes a legal nuisance under NCAT precedent.

Why Standard Schemes Are at Risk

Relying on informal agreements or generic model by-laws leaves Owners Corporations vulnerable:

• Unregulated Fields of View: Cameras capturing neighbour doorways, interior lot views when doors open, or shared lifts.

• Audio Recording Exposure: Uncontrolled continuous audio capture exposing residents and the scheme to Surveillance Devices Act breaches.

• NCAT Disputes: Without a tailored by-law, committees lack a direct enforcement mechanism to compel the immediate removal or repositioning of intrusive devices, leading to costly tribunal proceedings.

The Solution: A Tailored ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices’ By-Law

Rather than banning security tech outright or dealing with escalated resident complaints after a camera is installed, proactive committees adopt a specialised, scheme-wide framework.

A bespoke ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices By-Law’ provides a clear approval pathway while setting enforceable operational conditions:

Protect Your Scheme Today

Don’t wait for a hallway surveillance conflict to escalate into a formal NCAT dispute or privacy breach. Establishing clear, legally sound parameters protects your committee, upholds resident privacy, and keeps your scheme compliant with NSW law.

• Drafting custom ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices By-Laws’ tailored specifically to your building layout and entry systems.

• Reviewing existing scheme by-laws and advising committees on pending camera approval applications.

• Representing owners corporations in NCAT proceedings regarding unapproved devices, common property alterations, and nuisance claims

Speak to our specialist strata legal team today about implementing a custom ‘Surveillance By-Law’ for your scheme.

Facing a smart camera dispute or looking to update your security rules?

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

Need Expert Strata Law Advice?

Whether you are navigating a complex dispute or looking to protect your scheme, our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers are here to help. We provide clear, practical advice on all aspects of strata law, including by-laws, strata disputes, building defects, and fast levy debt collections. Call our team on 02 9562 1266 or email us here today.

Being an unfinancial owner has consequences that extend well beyond losing the right to vote at a general meeting.

What is an “Unfinancial” Strata Owner?

A common misconception is that an owner is only unfinancial if they have not paid their strata levies. That is not correct.

An unfinancial owner is an owner of a lot in a scheme who has not paid:

• All contributions (levies) that are due and payable.
• Any other amounts that are recoverable from the owner by the owners corporation in relation to their lot.

This means an owner may be unfinancial even if all levies have been paid. An owner may also become unfinancial if they owe other amounts that the owners corporation is legally entitled to recover, such as:

• Approved interest on overdue amounts.
• Legal costs that are recoverable under the legislation.
• Other valid charges properly imposed.

When Can an “Unfinancial” Strata Owner Vote?

In most cases, whether an owner is entitled to vote or stand for election is determined by their financial status when notice of the relevant meeting was given and whether all outstanding amounts were paid before the meeting.

Restrictions on Voting and Committee Eligibility

An unfinancial owner faces the following restrictions:

• General Meetings: They cannot vote on ordinary or special resolutions at a general meeting (although they may still vote on a proposed unanimous resolution).
• Strata Committee Nominations: They are not eligible for election or appointment to the strata committee if they were unfinancial when notice of the general meeting was given and remain so at the general meeting.
• Committee Meetings: A person cannot vote at strata committee meetings if they are an unfinancial owner at the date the notice of the strata committee meeting is given, or if that person was nominated to the strata committee by an unfinancial owner, and the amounts owed to the owners corporation are not paid before the meeting.

Retained Rights of “Unfinancial” Strata Owners

However, an owner does not lose every right because they are unfinancial:

• They may still require a motion to be included on the agenda for a general meeting.
• If they are already a strata committee member, they do not automatically vacate office merely because they later become unfinancial.

Case Study: Donne v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 86457 [2021] NSWCATCD 118

You do not have to look much further than the case of Donne v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 86457 to see how strictly the legislation can operate.

In this case, the owner had paid more than was required into the capital works fund but still owed contributions to the administrative fund. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) considered whether the surplus in one fund automatically satisfied the shortfall in the other.

The Tribunal held that it did not. Until the contributions levied to the administrative fund were paid, the owner remained unfinancial—notwithstanding that they had overpaid into the capital works fund—and interest was charged on the outstanding contributions.

The Tribunal’s Ruling: Although the Tribunal ultimately ordered that the surplus be transferred to satisfy the outstanding contribution and relieved the owner from paying interest, it nevertheless found that the owner was unfinancial on the date of the last annual general meeting. As a result, the owner was not entitled to vote at the meeting, could not vote on the motions before the meeting, and was not eligible to nominate for election to the strata committee. The Tribunal therefore refused to invalidate the resolutions passed at the meeting.

Key Legislative Update (December 2023)

It should be noted that at the time of the hearing in Donne, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 did not allow unfinancial owners to nominate a person for election as a member of the strata committee.

This was changed in December 2023. Now, even if an owner is unfinancial, that owner can still nominate a person for election as a member of the strata committee.

Summary for Owners Corporations and Lot Owners

Whether an owner is financial is determined strictly by their position at the time of the meeting. Subsequent orders or adjustments to the accounts will not necessarily alter their voting eligibility retrospectively.

• For Owners Corporations: It is highly important to ensure that financial records are completely accurate before determining whether an owner is eligible to vote.
• For Lot Owners: It is equally important to understand that paying levies alone may not be sufficient to remain financial if other recoverable amounts remain outstanding.

Need Expert Assistance with a Strata Dispute or Levy Debt Recovery?

Need Expert Strata Law Advice?

Whether you are navigating a complex dispute or looking to protect your scheme, our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers are here to help. We provide clear, practical advice on all aspects of strata law, including by-laws, building defects, and fast levy debt collections. Call our team on 02 9562 1266 or email us here today.

Sharma v Hoque [2026] NSWCATAP 198 (24 June 2026) is not a strata case. But it may have an important strata consequence of which to be aware.

The Legal Trap: Landlord Liability for Common Property Defects

The Appeal Panel has reaffirmed that a landlord may remain liable to a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RTA) even where the relevant defect that the tenant complained about relates to common property which is the owners corporation’s responsibility to repair, replace or maintain. The same conclusion was previously reached by the Appeal Panel: see McCartney v Wood [2023] NSWCATAP 131 [77]-[79].

Section 63 of the RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 44 of the RTA permits an excessive rent order where goods, services or facilities provided with the premises are reduced or withdrawn or given the state of repair of the residential premises.

That matters for owners corporations I Case study: Sharma v Hoque

In Sharma, the tenants recovered rent reductions from the landlord for various defects, including a gas and water leak, balcony leak, faulty intercom, air conditioning and lift issues.

The landlord argued that some of these matters were “strata” issues and were outside of landlord’s control. The Tribunal and the Appeal Panel rejected that argument. The Appeal Panel held that a landlord may be in breach of the obligation to repair the residential premises even where delay in doing so is caused, or partly caused, by an owners corporation.

The Strata Impact: Passing the Financial Loss to the Owners Corporation

The strata point is this: where an owners corporation breaches section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA) by failing to repair common property, and that breach causes the landlord to become liable to the tenant, the landlord may have a claim against the owners corporation.

Section 106 of the SSMA and Statutory Duty

Section 106 of the SSMA requires an owners corporation to maintain and keep common property in good and serviceable repair. It also gives a lot owner a right to recover, as damages for breach of statutory duty, any reasonably foreseeable loss suffered by the owner as a result of the owners corporation’s breach of that strict duty. The current limitation period under section 106(6) is six years from when the owner first becomes aware of the loss.

Forecasting the Chain of Loss

A rent reduction or a compensation order made in favour of a tenant may therefore become part of the landlord’s loss. That loss may not be remote merely because it is first suffered by the tenant.

In some cases, it may be foreseeable that, if common property defects affect a rented lot in a strata scheme, the tenant may seek rent reduction or compensation from the landlord. It may be equally foreseeable that the landlord may then look to the owners corporation if the underlying cause was an unremedied common property defect.

Key Takeaway for Strata Managers and Owners Corporations

Owners corporations should not assume that delay only exposes them to repair and remediation orders or to loss of rental income. Delay in rectifying common property may create a chain of financial loss. Where a rented lot is affected, that chain may run from the tenant to the landlord, and then back to the owners corporation under section 106 of the SSMA.

Owners Corporation Responsibilities: Beyond Strata Law

Sharma is not new law. But it is a useful reminder that disputes about an owners corporation’s duty does not sit neatly inside strata law. A failure to repair common property can have consequences for tenancies, and those consequences may become recoverable loss in a later section 106 claim against the owners corporation.

Have a Strata Dispute – Speak to the Experts.

Need Expert Strata Law Advice?

Whether you are navigating a complex dispute or looking to protect your scheme, our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers are here to help. We provide clear, practical advice on all aspects of strata law, including by-laws, building defects, and levy collections. Call our team on 02 9562 1266 or email us here today.