Strata living in New South Wales offers a unique community environment with shared amenities like pools, gyms, and BBQ areas. However, the enjoyment of these facilities relies on owners contributing to their upkeep through regular levy payments. But what happens when an owner falls behind on their levies? Can they be denied access to these common facilities?

The Legal Position in NSW

In New South Wales, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (SSMA) governs the rights and responsibilities of lot owners, including the implications of unpaid levies. An owner who has not paid their levies (including any interest and recovery costs) is considered an “unfinancial owner.”

The SSMA does impose some restrictions on unfinancial owners. Specifically, the Act restricts their participation in certain strata matters such as being restricted from voting at general meetings (except on motions requiring a unanimous resolution) and being elected to the strata committee.

However, it’s crucial to understand that the SSMA does not grant an automatic right to an owners corporation to deny an unfinancial owner access to common property facilities.

The Critical Role of By-Laws

The ability to restrict an owner’s access to common property facilities hinges on the existence and validity of specific by-laws within the strata scheme.

• By-laws and Restrictions: If a strata scheme’s registered by-laws explicitly include provisions restricting access to common facilities for lot owners with unpaid levies, then the owners corporation may have grounds to enforce those restrictions.
• Validity of By-laws: Even when such by-laws exist, their enforceability is not guaranteed. Section 150 of the SSMA empowers the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to deem by-laws “harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive,” which can render them invalid.
• Legal advice is essential: Given the complexities of the legislation and the potential for legal challenges, owners corporations should always seek updated legal advice to determine the enforceability of any by-laws that restrict facility access. What might have been considered enforceable in the past may not be today.

Important Considerations for Owners Corporations

Owners corporations need to proceed cautiously and ensure they are acting within the boundaries of the law. Here are some key considerations:

• Check the by-laws: The first step is to verify that the strata scheme has a by-law that specifically addresses the issue of restricting access to common property facilities for unfinancial owners. If no such by-law exists, the owners corporation cannot legally enforce such a restriction.
• Assess the enforceability of the by-law: Even if a relevant by-law is in place, it is essential to assess its enforceability as a by-law that is deemed harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive is unlikely to be upheld.
• Seek updated legal advice: Strata law is subject to change, and legal interpretations can evolve over time. Owners corporations should obtain current legal advice to ensure that their by-laws and enforcement actions comply with the latest legal standards.
• Apply to NCAT if necessary: If an enforceable by-law exists and an owner refuses to comply with it, the owners corporation may need to apply to NCAT for an order to enforce the by-law.

Proactive Measures: Promoting By-Laws and Levy Collections

To minimize disputes and ensure the smooth functioning of the strata scheme, owners corporations should adopt a proactive approach:

• Clear and comprehensive by-laws: Develop and maintain by-laws that are clear, unambiguous, and consistent with the SSMA. Ensure that all owners have easy access to these by-laws.
• Effective levy collection: Implement a robust system for collecting levies, including:
  • Issuing levy notices promptly.
  • Offering a range of payment options.
  • Following up on overdue payments in a timely and consistent manner.
  • Establishing a clear policy for handling levy arrears.
• Dispute resolution: Establish clear and fair procedures for resolving disputes related to levy payments and access to facilities.
• Professional guidance: Seek legal advice as needed to ensure compliance and best practices.

In NSW, the ability of an owners corporation to restrict an unfinancial owner’s access to common property facilities is not automatic. It depends on the specific by-laws of the strata scheme.

ACCESS TO FACILITIES: DO YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR BY-LAWS FOR UNFINANCIAL OWNERS?

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.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has confirmed that an owners corporation and NCAT can grant an owner retrospective approval of work or repairs done by the owner to the common property without the approval of the owners corporation.

However, the Court has also confirmed that there are some prerequisites that must be met before NCAT is able to grant retrospective approval for works done by an owner on common property without the approval of an owners corporation.

The Court has left open the question of whether an owner who does repairs to the common property which an owners corporation should have but did not perform can be compensated for the cost of those repairs.

Facts

Mr Colman owns a lot in a strata building in Pyrmont, Sydney.  Mr Colman and his wife sought the approval of their owners corporation to undertake alterations to a terrace on their lot which affected the common property.  Those alterations included removing and replacing tiles and waterproofing on the terrace. The Colmans alleged that work, or some of it, was necessary to repair defects in the common property which the owners corporation has failed or refused to fix.  Ultimately the Colmans undertook those works without first obtaining the permission of the owners corporation.

The Case

Mr Colman applied to NCAT for orders approving the works he did to his terrace on the grounds that the owners corporation had unreasonably withheld approval of those works and for the owners corporation to pay him damages.  Mr Colman’s application to NCAT was dismissed and an appeal to the Appeal Panel of NCAT was unsuccessful.  Mr Colman then appealed to the Supreme Court but was also unsuccessful.

Ruling

In its decision, the Supreme Court made some key findings about the operation of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 with respect to works done by owners that affect the common property.  In summary, the Supreme Court found that:

• Both an owners corporation and NCAT can give retrospective approval of works or repairs already carried out by an owner to common property directly affecting the owner’s lot, even if the owners corporation did not approve of those works before they were done;
• In the case of repairs to the common property undertaken by an owner without the consent of an owners corporation, the strata committee could retrospectively approve those repairs;
• If an owners corporation decides to retrospectively approve work that has been done to the common property by an owner after completion of the work, that approval must be given by special resolution if it involved major renovations;
• NCAT cannot grant retrospective approval for works or repairs that an owner has done to the common property without the permission of the owners corporation unless the owner has first sought the approval of the owners corporation for those works or repairs (even if that approval is sought after the works or repairs are done);
• Where an owner wants to do renovations that affect the common property, there is no reason why the owner cannot seek the owners corporation’s approval of those works and agree to take on responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the works by way of a special resolution approving a single by-law that both authorises the works and makes the owner responsible for their maintenance and upkeep – separate special resolutions to approve the works and then to adopt a by-law for the works are not necessary;
• An owners corporation can be taken to unreasonably refuse to approve an owner’s request for consent to carry out works that affect common property, even if the owner’s application for approval has not been voted on at a general meeting, for example, where the application for approval is urgent but the strata committee or secretary refuse to convene a general meeting to consider the issue or decline to do so within a reasonable time or accidentally omit it from the agenda of the next general meeting – in those circumstances there would be a constructive refusal of consent even though no formal decision has been made by the owners corporation at a meeting to reject the owner’s application;
• A by-law cannot delegate to the strata committee power to approve major renovations undertaken by an owner;
• An owner cannot recover compensation from an owners corporation for the cost of repairs the owner does to the common property without the authority of the owners corporation or an order approving that work made by NCAT (either prospectively or retrospectively);
• The question of whether an owner who carried out repairs to the common property which an owners corporation fails to perform can recover compensation from the owners corporation for the cost of those repairs if they are approved by the owners corporation or NCAT remains open and previous cases which indicated that repair costs could not be recovered by the owner under the previous strata legislation do not necessarily shut the gate on recovery of those repair costs under the current legislation;
• There is no need for an owners corporation to pass a resolution at a general meeting to authorise itself to carry out repairs to the common property – the decision to perform the repairs can be made by the strata committee;

Conclusion

The Colman case provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify a number of grey areas of strata law.  In doing so, the Court has clarified the power for an owners corporation and NCAT to retrospectively approve of work that has been done by an owner to the common property and also clarified that in some circumstances, an owner’s proposal to carry out work to common property can be rejected by an owners corporation even if the proposal is not put to a vote at a meeting, for instance, where the owners corporation delays dealing with the proposal.

Case citation: Colman v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 61131 [2025] NSWSC 63

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.

In August of this year the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court of New South Wales handed down the last of a series of decisions in relation to the penalties to be imposed on a strata scheme, strata manager and lot owner respectively, arising from a death which had occurred following a damaged gate in an industrial strata scheme falling on a person.

Although these decisions focus upon the criminal prosecution brought against the strata scheme strata manager and lot owner by Safe Work NSW, the circumstances are illustrative for owners corporations and strata managers generally.

Background Incidents

The strata scheme in question was an 8 lot industrial strata scheme around which was built a perimeter fence including a custom-built sliding electric gate.  The gate included guide posts and an end stopper to prevent the gate from over travelling in the closing direction.  The gate was approximately 8.5 metres long and 2 metres high.

In June 2020 an incident occurred whereby the gate was impacted at high speed by a van.  Although the gate remained upright it was bent out of shape, partially pulled off its track and disconnected from its electric motor.  In addition, the guide posts for the gate were damaged and the stopper had come out of position and was no longer capable of preventing over travel of the gate.  Whilst NSW Emergency Services attended the site immediately following the collision, and took steps to secure the gate and perimeter fence, no additional steps were taken to repair, replace or make it safe.

On 5 June 2020 a member of the owners corporation contacted the strata manager to advise of the damage to the gate.  Between 5 and 12 June 2020 the gate was opened and closed manually by various workers at the site.

On the morning of 5 June 2020 a representative of the strata manager issued a work order to a contractor to repair the damage, but did not arrange for the gate to be repaired or replaced as a matter of urgency.  In contrast, damage to the water meter at the owners corporation was repaired on 5 June 2020 on an urgent basis.

Neither the owners corporation nor the strata manager arranged for a risk assessment to be conducted in relation to the damaged gate nor was the gate placed out of service following the damage nor was it removed and nor was a sign posted to the effect that the gate was not operational pending its full repair or replacement.  Neither the owners corporation nor the strata manager took any action to prevent the manual operation of the gate or to post signs advising the gate was not to be operated manually until it had been fully repaired or replaced.

The following day, a number of occupants within the strata scheme undertook makeshift repairs to the gate, without notifying the strata manager.  These repairs were ad hoc in nature and did not eliminate or otherwise address the risk of the gate falling or collapsing.

Approximately one week later an employee of one of the businesses operating from the strata scheme and attempted to operate the gate manually but in the circumstances including a lack of a physical stopper and the damaged guide posts the gate became unstable and fell onto that person.  The worker sustained fatal crush injuries as a result of the incident.  The business was also prosecuted by Safe Work NSW as a result of the injury and death suffered by one of its employees.

Criminal Case Against the Owners Corporation

The owners corporation accepted that it had failed in its duty to comply under the Work Health and Safety Legislation in that it did not:

• either itself or require the strata manager to arrange an immediate risk assessment in relation to the safety and security issues;
• take the gate out of service immediately and post signage to the effect that the gate was not to be operated manually until it was fully repaired or replaced;
• implement itself or require the strata manager to implement measure to keep persons away from the damaged gate;
• direct that the damaged gate not be touched or remain open or unlocked pending repair or replacement; and
• develop and implement a safe work method statement for the manual operation of the gate.

The owners corporation was ordered to pay a fine of $225,000.00 as well as the prosecutor’s costs of $40,000.00.

Criminal Case Against the Strata Manager

The following failures were identified as a managerial breach of the strata manager’s breach of duty under the Work Health and Safety Legislation in that the strata manager’s duties included:

• requiring a competent person to repair or replace the damaged gate following notification on 5 June 2020 of the damage to that gate;
• arranging for the damaged gate to be immediately taken out of service and to prevent it being manually operated until repairs and replacement of the gate had been completed;
• communicating to owners and occupants of the owners corporation by means such as signs and barricades that the damaged gate should not be operated unless and until the operation of the gate had been deemed to be safe by a competent person; and
• confirming and follow up with relevant competent persons to require timeframes for repair and replacement once the strata manager had been notified by the owners corporation of the damage to the gate.

The strata manager was ordered to pay a fine of $150,000.00 as well as the prosecutor’s costs.

Criminal Case Against the Business

The following failures were identified as a breach of the business’ failure to comply with its duty under the Work Health and Safety Legislation:

• failing to direct its workers not to manually operate the gate whilst it was damaged;
• failing to direct that the damaged gate remain open unlocked prior to its replacement or repair by a competent person;
• failing to implement and develop a safe system of work for operating and/or using the damaged gate during the period prior to its replacement or repair;
• failing to develop a safe work method statement or safe work procedure for the manual operation of the gate;
• failing to train and instruct its workers in a safe system of work and work method statement;
• failing to raise safety concerns with the owners corporation and/or with the appointed strata manager about the daily routine of workers manually operating the damaged gate.

The business was fined $375,000.00 and was ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs in the amount of $44,000.00.

Some Relevant Observations for Owners Corporations and Strata Managers

Each of the parties prosecuted, the lot owners, the owners corporation and the strata manager were identified as having failed to have taken steps which each of them could have done to avoid the death.

Importantly, the Court identified that these steps could have been taken with little or no burden placed on the party concerned.  Examples of the steps which could have been taken included:

• the lot owner directing its employees not to operate the gate manually;
• the owners corporation directing that all occupants of the strata scheme do not operate the gate manually;
• the owners corporation taking steps to make sure the gate was “out of action” until such time as it had been repaired;
• the owners corporation directing owners and occupants of the strata scheme that they did not have permission or authority to repair common property;
• the strata manager failing to implement a safe work plan in relation to the damaged gate, once they became aware that the gate had been damaged;
• the strata manager failing to pursue the clearly required repairs and/or replacement of the gate with sufficient urgency;

Conclusion

Failures of common property are more than an annoyance.  The failure of an owners corporation and strata manager (and in some instances lot owners) to address failures of common property can lead to tragic outcomes.

It is critical that owners corporation take seriously their responsibilities pursuant to s106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 to repair and maintain common property, and these cases illustrate that it is insufficient for owners corporations and strata managers to operate on the assumption that repairs and maintenance can occur “in due course”.  In each instance, a proper analysis needs to be undertaken of the potential impact of each failure of common property and each instance where common property needs to be repaired.

If an owners corporation or strata manager is in any doubt in relation to these matters they should seek advice immediately.

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.

Adrian Mueller talks with Nikki Jovicic, LookUpStrata about the owners corporation’s responsibility to remedy water leaks and defects in NSW strata buildings.

Recent heavy rainfall across NSW has unfortunately led to a surge in water leaks and defects within strata buildings. These leaks can damage both common property and lot property, causing significant frustration and financial burden for apartment owners. As a result, disputes between owners and their owners corporation have become more frequent.

Understanding the Owners Corporation’s Responsibility

The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) clearly outlines the owners corporation’s duty to maintain and repair common property. This includes:

• Maintaining common areas: Roofs, external walls, plumbing systems, balconies, stairwells, and any other areas designated as common property in the strata scheme.
• Keeping them in a good state of repair: This means addressing any issues that could compromise the structural integrity, safety, or functionality of the common property.
• Renewing or replacing common property fixtures and fittings: Pipes, waterproofing membranes, sealant around windows, and other elements that naturally deteriorate over time.

Strict Liability and the Duty to Repair

The Act imposes a strict liability on the owners corporation for repairs. This means the owners corporation is responsible for fixing defects in the common property, regardless of cause. Even if the leak originates from faulty original construction or unforeseen circumstances, the owners corporation must address the issue.

This strict liability eliminates the option for the owners corporation to simply deny responsibility for repairs. Delays in fixing leaks, passing resolutions to avoid repairs, or claiming lack of funds are not valid excuses.

Remedies available to Lot Owners when an Owners Corporation Fails to Act

If your apartment suffers damage from water leaks or defects originating in the common property, and the owners corporation fails to take action, you have several options:

• Apply to NCAT (New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal): You can file an application with NCAT seeking an order that compels the owners corporation to undertake the necessary repairs.
• Claim Damages: You can pursue compensation for losses incurred due to the water leak. This may include the cost of repairs to your unit, the replacement of damaged belongings, or lost rental income if you were unable to rent out your unit while repairs were ongoing.
• Administrator Appointment: In extreme cases, NCAT can appoint someone to manage the owners corporation and organise repairs. The compulsory strata manager will take control of the owners corporations affairs and arrange for the repairs to be completed.

Making a Strong Claim for Water Leaks and Defects as a Lot Owner

To maximise your chances of a successful claim, it’s crucial to have a well-documented case. You should:

• Verify Ownership: Ensure you are the current owner of the affected unit at the time of the claim.
• Identify the Source: Identify the specific defects in the common property causing the water leaks. This often involves obtaining a professional inspection report from a qualified specialist.
• Scope of Works: Outline the necessary repairs in a scope of works document. This document should be based on the expert’s recommendations and clearly define the repairs needed to address the leak and prevent future occurrences.
• Proof of Losses: Gather evidence to substantiate your financial losses. Receipts for repairs to your unit, damaged furniture replacement costs, and rental agreements proving lost income are all valuable documents.
• Timely Action: Don’t delay! File your claim with NCAT within two years of becoming aware of the water leaks, defects and the resulting damage.

The strict liability makes it difficult for owners corporations to argue they are not responsible for repairs.

Adrian Mueller’s final thoughts for those owners corporations still avoiding their responsibility, at the end of the session: “that’s the law, like it or not…… sometimes you just have to suck it up”.

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.

Carpet inside an apartment in a strata building is common property.  So too is paint on the walls and ceiling inside an apartment.  Surely that can’t be right!  But according to two Supreme Court Judges, it is.

Introduction

There are some truths that the strata industry has held to be self-evident for many years.  For example, in the strata industry, it has long been held that carpet inside an apartment in a strata building forms part of the lot and is not common property and that the same can be said for paint on the walls and ceiling inside an apartment.

But sometimes in strata living (as in life) not everything is as it seems.  A recent Supreme Court case makes that clear.

Carpet

In 2021, the owners corporation of a townhouse complex in Tweed Heads South sued the builder of the complex in the Supreme Court for damages arising out of construction defects.  The case was heard by the Supreme Court in May 2024 and on 7 June 2024 the Court published its judgment.

During the course of its judgment, the Supreme Court had to consider whether or not the owners corporation was entitled to recover damages from the builder for consequential damage to carpets inside the townhouses that was caused by defects in the common property that had allowed water to leak into and cause damage to those townhouses including the carpets in them. The builder argued that the carpet inside the townhouses was lot property as a result of which the owners corporation could not claim compensation for the damage to the carpet.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court held that the carpet was installed inside the townhouses before the strata plan was registered and, relying on the Seiwa case, held that the lower horizontal boundary of each townhouse was the upper surface of its floor, namely the carpet.  For these reasons, the Court concluded that the carpet in each townhouse was common property meaning the owners corporation could claim damages for the cost to remove all carpet and underlay and supply and install new carpet to match existing carpet as closely as possible: see The Owners – Strata Plan No. 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687.

Cosmetic Work

The conclusion that carpet inside a strata lot is common property will not sit comfortably with many within the strata industry.  That begs the question: did the Supreme Court get it right?

There is an indication in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 that it did.  Section 109 of that Act allows an owner of a lot in a strata building to carry out cosmetic work to common property in connection with the owner’s lot without the approval of the owners corporation.  Section 109 provides some examples of cosmetic work including laying carpet.  This indicates that the legislature considered that carpet in a lot forms part of the common property.

Again, this conclusion will still not sit well with many in the strata industry.  So is there any other support for it?

Paint

In 2010, the Supreme Court had to consider a claim by lot owners for damages to cover (among other things) the cost to repair water damage to ceilings and peeling paint work on ceilings in their lot.  The Court concluded that the ceilings and the paint on them were not within the cubic space of the lot and therefore formed part of the common property: see Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1507.

Again, section 109 of the Act provides support for the conclusion that paint inside a strata lot forms part of the common property.  This is because section 109 says that painting a strata lot is cosmetic work to common property in connection with the lot.

Common Property Memorandum

There is further support for these conclusions in the common property memorandum.  Section 107 of the Act permits an owners corporation to make a by-law to adopt a common property memorandum.  The common property memorandum specifies whether an owner or the owners corporation is responsible for the maintenance and repair of certain common property.

The common property memorandum that has been prescribed under the strata regulations covers paintwork inside a lot including on a ceiling and internal carpeting.  Whilst the common property memorandum allocates responsibility for the maintenance and repair of that paintwork and carpeting to owners, the inclusion of those items in the memorandum lends support to the conclusion that they form part of the common property, as strange as that might seem.

Conclusion

The conclusions reached by the Supreme Court will be surprising to many and turn longstanding thinking in the strata industry about some basic concepts on its head.  Those conclusions are not entirely free from doubt and there is at least one case which goes the other way.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decisions should give everyone in the strata industry pause for thought.

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.

Who is Responsible for Common Property Repairs Caused by Rain?

Sydney smashes another record rainfall in May 2024 (to date) with a deluge of rain over the past weeks across metropolitan and regional areas of New South Wales.

Extensive rainfall events test the patience of every strata manager resulting in numerous complaints about water leaks into strata lots.

Faced with endless demands, owners corporations need to be very clear about their responsibilities, so it’s timely to revisit some of the “fundamentals”.

In the article below we discuss…

Step 1 – Is it the owners corporation’s responsibility?

Step 2 – If it leaks has the common property failed?

Step 3 – Are damages payable by the owners corporation for common property failures?

For more information: Rain and Common Property Damage – Who is Responsible?

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 expert 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 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.

Fire Orders and Cost Recovery By-laws

An owners corporation is only responsible for the common property in its strata scheme.  So how does an owners corporation deal with a fire order that requires it to do work to lot property?  Can a Council issue a fire order against an owners corporation to do work to lot property? If so, can the owners corporation make a by-law to recover from owners the costs it incurs doing fire safety work in their lots? The answers might surprise you.

Strata Law

An owners corporation is the owner of the common property it is strata scheme.  The owners corporation is responsible for managing and controlling the use of the common property and maintaining and repairing the common property.  Those obligations arise under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Strata Act).

An owners corporation does not own the lots in its strata scheme, and under that Act, the owners corporation has virtually no responsibility in relation to any of the lots.  This is because the lots are privately owned and the owners and occupiers of the lots are generally responsible for managing and maintaining them.  So, under the Strata Act, the owners corporation is generally not responsible for maintaining and repairing lot property.  Further, in general, the owners corporation is only able to adopt budgets and raise levies to cover expenses associated with the common property, not lot property

Fire Orders

But what happens when a Local Council issues a fire order that requires an owners corporation to carry out work to both common property and lot property.  Does the Council have power to issue that order? And does the owners corporation have power to comply with the order and do work that affects lot property?

Planning Laws

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) gives a Local Council power to order the owner of premises to do things that are specified in the order in order the promote adequate fire safety in a building when provisions for fire safety in the building are inadequate to prevent, suppress or prevent the spread of fire.  The EPA Act says that premises include a building and that an owner includes, in the case of land that is the subject of a strata scheme, an owners corporation.  Therefore, the EPA Act gives a Local Council power to order an owners corporation to carry out work to improve fire safety to both common property and lot property.

Case Law

This was confirmed by the NSW Court of Appeal as long ago as 1985.  In 1985, the Court decided the case of Proprietors of Strata Plan 159 v Parramatta City Council.  In that case, the Council had issued a fire safety order to the owners corporation of a strata building which required the owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades principally in two lots which were to be used as a restaurant.  The owners corporation challenged the order and argued that the order unfairly burdened other owners with the costs of carrying out fire safety upgrades predominately to those two lots.  However, the Court concluded that the statutory language was clear in permitting a Council to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that required work to be done to lot property.  The Court acknowledged that this meant that sometimes the costs of complying with a fire order would be shared by all of the owners even when the need for fire safety upgrades was confined exclusively to the lots of some of the owners which may seem inequitable.

But the Court considered that there were two answers to this problem.  First, if the legislation clearly allowed a fire order to require an owners corporation to do work to lot property the mere fact that might produce a sense of injustice between owners was not a reason for the Court frustrating the clearly expressed intention of the legislature and it was a matter for the Parliament to change the legislation to overcome any unfairness if it saw fit to do so.  Second, fire is a phenomenon which endangers all owners and occupiers of lots meaning all owners have a common interest in fire prevention and fire safety.  This meant that it made sense for the legislation to allow the Council to issue one fire order against the owners corporation rather than have to issue and monitor compliance with multiple fire orders against numerous parties.  Ultimately, the Court considered that it was in the common interest of all owners for the Council to have the power to issue the fire order against the owners corporation.  The Court’s decision has recently been referred to with approval by NCAT.

Recovery of Costs

If a Council can require an owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades to lot property, can the owners corporation recover the cost of performing those upgrades from the relevant owners?  There is no clear answer to that question.  Many owners corporations have introduced cost recovery type by-laws that purport to allow them to recover costs from owners in a variety of circumstances.  There have been several recent cases in which NCAT has invalidated cost recovery type by-laws.  But there are also cases where NCAT has upheld cost recovery type by-laws. Ultimately, if an owners corporation wants to seek to recover from certain owners the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in their lots, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place but there may be difficulty enforcing the by-law.

Conclusion

A Council is entitled to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that requires fire safety upgrades to be carried out to lot property.  Where that occurs, the Strata Act gives the owners corporation the right to enter the lots in order the do the work required by the fire order.  If an owners corporation wants to recover the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in a particular lot, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place for that purpose.  However, NCAT has recently raised question marks over the validity of cost recovery type by-laws so the recovery of those costs cannot be guaranteed.

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.