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.

Tenants, Building Defects, NCAT and Rent Relief

In a recent case, a property manager failed to inform a landlord of defects in the common property of a strata building and take any steps to investigate issues that a tenant had complained about.

The tenant applied to NCAT for a rent reduction as the landlord had breached their obligation to keep the rented premises in a reasonable state of repair as water leaked into the premises. The tenant was successful.

Who Could be Liable?

If a tenant claims rent relief from NCAT due to defects in a strata building, it’s important to note that NCAT could deem that it is the responsibility of the:

• Landlord who could lose rent (or worse) if they do nothing;
• Property manager if they fail to fix defects in the premises that they are authorised to repair following a tenant’s complaint in a timely manner;
• Property manager if they have not advised the landlord of defects (where they are not authorised organise repairs) following a tenant’s complaint;
• Owners corporation who could also be held liable for a landlord’s loss of rent.

A Timely Reminder for Managing Agents!

Ensure your professional indemnity insurance is current;

• Ensure your professional indemnity insurance is current
• Obtain landlord consent on a minimum amount for repair works which can be dealt with without the landlord’s approval;
• Allocate sufficient resources to attend to repair requests in a timely manner to avoid issues which could lead to court proceedings;
• Request that any common property defects are promptly repaired by the owners corporation;
• Ensure that the relevant strata by-laws for the apartment block are up to date to minimise your risk

Here we share some cases…

• https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18261da0208ae3ceaf03173b
• http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2019/9.html

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.

NCAT Issues a Warning for Building Managers

A recent decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has broken new ground in making orders for the termination of a Building Manager Agreement.

In particular, the finding in this case was that the caretaker (building manager) had failed to perform the relevant agreement satisfactorily, and that the building manager agreement, in the circumstances of the case, was harsh, oppressive, unreasonable or unconscionable.

Owners Corporations and Unsatisfactory Building Managers

This decision of NCAT provides a comprehensive analysis of the operation of s72 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and provides a solid framework for an Owners Corporation to consider whether there are grounds to seek the assistance of NCAT to bring an unfair or unsatisfactory Caretaker (Building Manager) Agreement to an end.

Here we share the recent case and outcomes: NCAT Issues a Warning for Misbehaving Building Managers.

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

A recent decision of the Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has highlighted the potential risks for owners corporations seeking to impose penalties and other sanctions on lot owners in connection with non-compliance with by-laws.

Careful attention will need to be paid by owners corporations to “cost recovery” aspects of their by-laws to ensure that an otherwise well constructed by-law is not rendered completely invalid.

Here we share a recent case where NCAT Tightens the Screws on Strata By-laws.

Owners corporations who have these by-laws should give consideration to having them reviewed.

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.

Relevant for Any Owners Corporation with Combustible Cladding on Their Building.

On 18 October 2021, the NSW Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Taylor Construction Group Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 92888 [2021] NSWSC 1315, confirming that biowood cladding is combustible cladding that poses a risk of fire spread between levels on the façade of an apartment building. Muellers represented the successful owners corporation in NCAT and also in the Supreme Court – a WIN for all owners corporations.

Senior Lawyer, Faiyaaz Shafiq, JS Mueller & Co Lawyers, said, “The outcome of the case represents a major win for owners corporations strengthening the basis for claims by owners corporations against builders and developers who have installed combustible cladding on their buildings.”

“I have no doubt it will see a marked shift in the way in which builders and developers respond to combustible cladding claims”, said Faiyaaz.

The owners corporation initially commenced proceedings in NCAT against the builder and developer seeking orders that biowood cladding installed on the façade of its building be replaced or compensation be paid to cover the cost to replace the cladding.

The owners corporation claimed that the cladding was combustible or created an undue risk of fire spread in breach of the statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 because it did not comply with the Building Code of Australia and was not fit for its purpose.

NCAT ordered that the defective biowood cladding be rectified by the builder and developer. The builder/developer appealed NCAT’s findings to NCAT’s Appeal Panel which dismissed the appeal.

The builder/developer then appealed to the NSW Supreme Court.

The NSW Supreme Court on 18 October 2021 gave a comprehensive judgment dismissing the appeal. In doing so, the Court accepted the owners corporation’s arguments that:

1. biowood cladding is combustible;
2. there is a risk that fire will spread beyond the floor of origin because the material from which the biowood is made will support fire spread between the levels of the building;
3. there was evidence from the fire safety engineer of the owners corporation that there is an undue risk of fire spreading due to the biowood;
4. there was no evidence to support the contention of the builder/developer that a slower rate of fire spread does not present an undue risk in comparison with a higher rate of spread; and
5. there was evidence that sprinklers or any other fire safety measure would have no relevance to external fire spread.

Furthermore, the Court also agreed with the owners corporation’s submission that combustible cladding is not fit for purpose which is one of the categories of the statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989.

The Court has reaffirmed the view that the fundamental fire safety requirement for a class 2 apartment building requires external walls to be non-combustible, and cladding installed in a multi-storey apartment building which does not comply with the BCA is not suitable for the purpose for which it is used.

The Court’s judgment confirms the view the owners corporation always held that biowood poses an unacceptable fire safety risk.

The Court’s judgment is a landmark ruling that is relevant to any owners corporation that has combustible cladding on its building.

The ruling strengthens the basis for claims by owners corporations against builders and developers who have installed combustible cladding on their buildings and should see a marked shift in the way in which builder and developers respond to those claims.

Note: Faiyaaz Shafiq of JS Mueller & Co Lawyers acted for the successful owners corporation and was assisted by barristers Tom Davie and Anita Power of Queen’s Square Chambers.

If you or your owners corporation require advice about combustible cladding, please contact our expert team now.

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.

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.

The rules of the game relating to pets in strata buildings have changed.

Many owners corporations are not grappling with those new rules and trying to come to grips with them.

This has resulted in a shift away from by-laws that ban pets to by-laws which regulate the keeping of pets in strata buildings.

But do some of the rules that have been included in new pets by-laws go too far?

A recent and high profile NCAT case takes a closer look at that issue – By-laws that Regulate Pets.

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.

In last week’s newsletter article, we reported on a recent NCAT case in which an owners corporation was ordered to repair damage to lot property caused by a common property roof leak.

Our article generated considerable interest. The NCAT decision begs the question: Is an owners corporation responsible for repairing lot property?

In this article, we take a closer look at that issue and consider whether the NCAT case we reported on last week (Mastellone v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 87110 [2021] NSWCATAP 188) was correctly decided.

Read the full article Is an Owners Corporation Responsible for Repairing Lot Property?

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.

There is a common misconception that an owners corporation is not responsible for repainting a water damaged ceiling in a lot or repairing consequential water damage to a lot that is caused by a common property defect.

In a recent case, NCAT held that:

• an owners corporation is responsible for carrying out those repairs;
• the common property memorandum does not exempt an owners corporation from having to perform those repairs.

Here we discuss the case and explain why an owners corporation is not exempt from repairing damage to lot property NCAT Orders Owners Corporation to Repair Lot Property

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.