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.

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.

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

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.

Are you aware of the traps in collective sales and the potential problem with option agreements?

What are Option Agreements?

Option agreements are frequently used as a mechanism to facilitate collective sales of lots in a strata scheme.  Such option agreements (commonly called “Options”) provide a number of helpful mechanisms and tools to provide a degree of flexibility.

The Traps of Collective Sales Option Agreements

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of NSW has demonstrated that there can be traps for owners of strata lots who are using Options as part of a collective sale process.

The case provides helpful reminders about how options should be used in a collective sale process, and the matters to be aware of if lot owners are going to be properly protected in that process.

What Should You be Aware of?

Here we discuss option agreements and what to be aware of with strata block collective sales Traps in Strata Block Collective Sales

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.

What would you think if you were told that NCAT could not order an owners corporation to carry out repairs to common property or order a lot owner or tenant to comply with a by-law?

No doubt you would think that could not be correct.

However, recent decisions by the Appeal Panel of NCAT have cast doubt on NCAT’s power to resolve most types of strata disputes.

So where does that leave us?

Read the full article here: Is NCAT’s Ability to Resolve Strata Disputes Unclear?

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

Is an owners corporation able to terminate the appointment of a caretaker with whom it is dissatisfied?

In some cases this is possible.

But in recent years, there have been several cases involving attempts by owners corporations to rid themselves of caretakers who they consider are underperforming and these attempts have been spectacularly unsuccessful.

In this article, we review one of those cases Strata Caretaker Agreements

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

In a surprising move, the Supreme Court has just upheld a decision made at an informal executive committee meeting.

Click here to read the full article – Supreme Court Rules Executive Committee has Power

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