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.

Are Apartment Blocks the new COVID-19 Super-spreaders?

Just like cruise ships strata buildings have the capacity to be super-spreaders of COVID-19.

Apartment buildings and strata blocks have many shared facilities and not all, such as lifts, can be closed during COVID-19 breakout periods.

Shared facilities such as lifts, foyers, stairwells, air-conditioning, garbage and laundry facilities all have the potential to spread COVID-19 and with the current Delta variant, that can occur very quickly, as seen with this recent lockdown of a prominent strata building in Sydney’s east!

As all of Greater Sydney deals with the lockdown and NSW Health advice stating how difficult it is to control the spread of this new very contagious strain of COVID-19, Owners Corporations are grappling with a lack of power to help stop their strata blocks becoming the next victim of COVID-19.

Owners Corporation Assistance

To assist owners corporations with managing the situation (and bringing some control back) we have developed a COVID-19 by-law to assist you with the current situation.

For COVID-19 by-law assistance contact us here now, we’re happy to help.

Did you know there are 81,717 strata schemes registered in NSW and every year this number grows by more than 1,000 across Sydney and regional NSW?

That’s why the NSW government has recently recognised the importance of strata living laws and the need to ensure that they stay relevant and address some fundamental issues that have arisen since the laws were re-written in 2015.

An online survey has been developed and the NSW Government is asking you to ‘have your say’ here now.

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

In 2018 the High Court concluded that NCAT did not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes between residents of different states.

This meant that NCAT could not resolve disputes between strata owners who lived in different states such as NSW and QLD.

A recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT clarifies that NCAT can decide a dispute between an owners corporation and a lot owner or occupier who is resident in another state. This is a sensible decision and clarifies uncertainty as to the extent of NCAT’s jurisdiction to resolve strata disputes.

What was the case that led to this decision and why? NCAT Clarifies the Extent of its Jurisdiction

For NSW strata legal or levy collection advice please contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

NCAT has recently changed the rules that apply to expert evidence in most strata cases.

These changes relax the rules relating to expert evidence and make it easier for opinions to be given by experts in a quicker and cheaper way.

Previously, if a person such as a building consultant, engineer or valuer, wanted to give expert evidence in a strata dispute in NCAT, they had to comply with certain rules before their evidence would be accepted.

These included rules that required the person to follow an Expert Witness Code of Conduct to ensure that they act as an independent expert and not as the “hired gun” of one of the parties.

Often, an expert’s report would be rejected by NCAT if those rules were not followed.

However, those rules no longer apply to most strata disputes. This means that experts will now be able to give evidence in most strata cases in NCAT without having to comply with every aspect of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct.

This is intended to ensure that opinions for strata disputes, given by experts, are able to be obtained in an easier and cheaper way although those opinions will still need to be soundly based and reliable.

So, what are the new rules for giving expert evidence? NCAT Changes the Rules for Strata Disputes.

For NSW strata legal or levy collection advice contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The Supreme Court recently ordered a lot owner who succeeded in litigation against an owners corporation to pay the owners corporation’s legal costs.

This is one of the first times a litigant has been punished by an adverse costs order for approaching the Supreme Court for relief which could have been given by NCAT.

We recently wrote about this case and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court decided that an owners corporation of an apartment building in inner Sydney could not upgrade or build on common property in a way that would prevent a lot owner gaining access to, and egress from, a car space lot with a regular sized car.

So, what was the outcome after the Court handed down its judgment? Why did the Court decide that the lot owner should pay the litigation costs?

Read the full details here Supreme Court Orders Winner to Pay Legal Costs.

For NSW strata legal or levy collection advice contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The Supreme Court has rejected a proposal by an owners corporation to upgrade its common property in a way that would have impeded access to an owner’s car space.

The building is a residential strata scheme in inner Sydney containing 80 residential apartments, 27 car space lots and common property.

A particular car space, not attached to any apartment lot within the building, was purchased as an investment.

The owners corporation of the building proposed to change the use of and upgrade an area of common property adjacent to this car space. This upgrade, if implemented, would have impeded the ability of the owner or tenant to drive a standard size vehicle into and out of car space.

What are the broader implications of this case? Read our case paper to find out Common Property and Supreme Court

For NSW strata legal or levy collection advice contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.