Trees Blocking Views: Owners Corporations Fixes

In a recent case, the Land and Environment Court has confirmed that an owners corporation can apply to the Court for orders to require trees on a neighboring property which obstruct views from residential lots in the owners corporation’s building to be removed or pruned.  The Court confirmed that the individual lot owners do not have to apply to the Court for that relief.

The Case

A row of 21 Cyprus trees grows on a property in Sydney’s lower North Shore adjacent to a strata building.  The foliage of those trees is relatively close to the windows of some of the apartments in that building.  They obstruct the views from, and sunlight entering, the windows from those apartments.  To remedy that problem, the owners corporation of the apartment building applied to the Land and Environment Court for orders to require the neighbor to remove 9 of the trees and prune 10 of the trees.  Those orders were sought under the Trees (Disputes between Neighbors) Act 2009.

The Problem

In the case, the neighbor argued that the owners corporation was not entitled to apply for any orders on behalf of the apartment owners concerning the trees.  This was because the trees did not obstruct any views or sunlight on the common property but only from the apartments themselves and the owners corporation did not own or manage the apartments as a result of which it did not have standing to apply for orders in relation to the trees.

The Decision

The Land and Environment Court rejected the neighbour’s argument.  The Court held that the land which adjoined the trees in question was common property that was owned by the owners corporation and as the owner of that land the owners corporation could apply for an order relating to an apartment situated on the land in its strata scheme.  The Court also said that the apartment owners or residents themselves could also apply to the Court for orders in relation to the trees.  The Court stressed that this case was different to cases under the Trees Act that relate to tree damage.  In those types of cases apartment owners could only apply to the Court for orders in relation to damage to their apartments and the owners corporation could only apply to the Court for orders relating to damage to common property.

Conclusion

The Court’s decision clarifies that an owners corporation is entitled to apply for relief under the Trees Act in relation to trees on a neighboring property that obstruct views or sunlight through windows in apartments.  The Court’s decision represents a departure from earlier decision of the Court in 2012 in Salmon v Kibble[2012] NSWLEC 1359 in which it was held that an owners corporation could not make an application to the Court and instead applications needed to be made by the owners of the individual apartments.

The case provides greater flexibility for tree disputes involving strata schemes to be resolved through applications that are made by owners corporations.

Case citation: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 52378 v Huang [2025] NSWLEC 1125.


Adrian Mueller Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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.




Win for Owners Corporation Against Developer

Introduction

The property development industry has become more astute in recent years.  This has resulted in property developers putting in place corporate structures that are intended to protect their assets.  This often results in owners corporations being unable to recover compensation from developers to cover the costs to fix defects that affect their buildings.  So what can be done to avoid that problem?

In this article we take a look at a recent case in which an owners corporation represented by JS Mueller & Co succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court to make a freezing order against a developer to prevent the developer dissipating its assets to ensure that the developer would have sufficient assets to pay any compensation the owners corporation was awarded by the Court to cover the cost to fix building defects.

The Facts

There is a mixed use building in Milsons Point, Sydney containing 125 residential lots and 2 commercial lots.  The building was completed in July 2021.  Since August 2021, the developer has been selling the residential lots in the ordinary course.  The developer has now sold 121 of the 125 residential lots.  The developer still owns 4 of the residential lots. They are effectively the developer’s only assets.

The building contains defects.  The owners corporation has sued the developer in the Supreme Court for damages arising out of those defects.  In the case, the owners corporation has obtained evidence from a quantity surveyor to the effect that the estimated cost to rectify the defects is in the order of $10.6 million.

The Problem

The owners corporation became concerned that the developer’s only assets were the four residential lots that it owned in the building and that once those lots were sold, the sale proceeds would be dissipated and the developer would have no assets left to pay any damages the owners corporation was awarded by the Court.  That would have rendered to the continuation of the court case against the developer pointless.

Application for Freezing Order

In November 2024 the owners corporation applied to the Supreme Court for a freezing order to be made against the developer.  The purpose of that order was to prevent the developer from disposing of its assets up to the value of $10.6 million being the amount of the owners corporation’s claim.  The developer resisted the application for the freezing order and argued that there was no basis for the Court to make that order.

The Decision

On 6 February 2025 the Supreme Court published its decision in which it concluded that it was appropriate for a freezing order to be made against the developer generally in the terms sought by the owners corporation.  The Court was persuaded that there was a danger that any damages that were awarded to the owners corporation would be wholly or partially unsatisfied because the developer might dispose of its assets once it sells the remaining 4 lots in the building that it still owns.  The Court concluded that it was likely that the developer would sell those 4 lots in the future and that it would distribute the profit generated by the sale of the those lots either by way of dividend or as a loan to other members of its corporate group.  This was consistent with the way in which the developer had dealt with the proceeds of sale of other lots it had sold in the development.

Conclusion

The case shows that an owners corporation that is concerned that a developer against whom it has made a claim for damages arising from building defects can take steps to protect its interests and ensure that the developer does not dissipate its assets to avoid having to pay damages to the owners corporation.  The case shows that the Supreme Court will make freezing orders against developers in appropriate circumstances to safeguard the position of owners corporations who are at risk of being left with nothing if the developers of their strata schemes are able to deal with their assets without restraint.

Case citation: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 v Aqualand Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 31


Adrian Mueller Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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 Reforms Now 2026-27: New Key Dates and Changes

The Building Commission NSW has announced a delay in the implementation of planned fire safety reforms. Originally scheduled for February 2025, these reforms will now be rolled out in 2026 and 2027.

New regulations will significantly impact owners corporations, owners, strata managers, developers, and fire safety professionals. These changes, stemming from the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire Safety) Amendment (Fire Safety) Regulation 2022, aim to bolster fire safety standards and increase accountability.

What’s Changing?

The biggest shift involves aligning AFSS inspections with Australian Standard 1851-2012. This means:

  • Increased Inspection Frequency: Seven critical fire safety measures now require monthly servicing, a significant jump from previous requirements.
  • Stricter Record-Keeping: Detailed records of all inspections, including any missed servicing, must be kept onsite for at least seven years. These records must be readily available for inspection by authorities.
  • Zero Tolerance for Non-Compliance: Failure to adhere to these new rules can result in hefty fines of up to $66,000 per incident.

The Impact on Your Owners Corporation

These changes translate to:

  • Increased Costs: Expect a rise in maintenance costs due to more frequent inspections and potential repairs.
  • Heightened Risk: The potential for costly fines adds a significant layer of risk for your Owners Corporation.
  • Increased Administrative Burden: Maintaining comprehensive records and ensuring compliance with the new regulations will require careful planning and diligent record-keeping.

What Can Owners Corporation Plan Ahead for?

  • Avoid the Rush: Schedule inspections and engage qualified fire safety practitioners early to avoid last-minute delays and potential penalties.
  • Budget Accordingly: Factor in the increased costs of inspections and potential repairs into your financial planning.
  • Review Existing Records: Gather all necessary fire safety records and ensure they are readily available for inspection.
  • Consult with Experts: Seek guidance from strata compliance experts who can provide tailored advice on navigating these new regulations.
  • Fire Safety By-laws: Reduce your risk and consult JS Mueller & Co Strata Lawyers to ensure your fire safety by-laws are current

New Key Dates and Changes

These new AFSS requirements are a significant shift. By proactively addressing these changes, your Owners Corporation can ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and protect the safety and value of your property.

For more information including the new key dates and changes scheduled for 2026 and 2027 visit NSW Government

Strata, Mitigate your Risk…

It is critical that you prepare and ensure you are across the new  regulations, new key dates and in preparation your fire safety by-laws are up to date.


DOES YOUR FIRE SAFETY BY-LAW NEED UPDATING? CLICK HERE NOW…


Adrian Mueller Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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




Safe Work Prosecutes Strata Manager, OC & Lot Owner

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 Specialist Strata Lawyer and Accredited Property Lawyer

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.




VIDEO: Water Leaks, NCAT & Common Property

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 Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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.




Building Defects: How do You Prove Systemic Defects?

Introduction

It is an unfortunate reality that many strata apartment buildings contain defects.  Many of those defects are widespread or systemic defects that affect most or all of the lots.  But how far does an owners corporation have to go to prove the existence of systemic defects?  Does the owners corporation have to organise for its experts to inspect each and every lot to prove that those systemic defects exist in each lot?  A recent Supreme Court case provides the answer to that question.

The Case

There is a strata complex containing 45 townhouses in Tweek Heads South.  The complex was built in about 2018 and 2019.  There are defects in the complex.

In 2021, the owners corporation of the complex sued the builder for damages to (among other things) cover the cost to rectify defects throughout the complex.  In the case, the owners corporation claimed that several defects were systemic and present in numerous townhouses.  One of those defects related to waterproofing defects at the outer edge of balconies above garage doors of many townhouses.

The parties’ experts agreed that the beam which spans the outer edge of the balconies on two of the townhouses suffered moisture damage due to the same waterproofing defect on the balconies of those townhouses.  However, the owners corporation’s expert did not inspect any of the other townhouses or carry out any investigations to prove that those defects existed in them.  The builder denied that those same defects existed in the other townhouses and claimed that the owners corporation had not proved its case in that regard.

Proving the Existence of Systemic Defects

The Court agreed with the builder and concluded that the owners corporation had not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the waterproofing defects and moisture damage to the beams on the outer edge of the balconies existed in any of the other townhouses.  In other words, the Court concluded that the owners corporation had not proven that those defects were systemic.

The Court relied heavily on an earlier decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No. 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612.  In that case, the owners corporation of a block of 14 units argued that no water stops had been installed by the builder in the bathrooms of all 14 units.  The owners corporation’s expert evidence only proved that there were no water stops in the bathrooms of three units.  But the owners corporation claimed that the lack of water stops was a systemic defect present in all of the bathrooms.

The Court held that it could not be inferred from the evidence that established that there were no water stops in three bathrooms that waterproofing work was incorrectly performed in other units and observed that the fact that the waterproofing contractor defectively performed work in a small number of units did not warrant a conclusion that it did so everywhere else.  Importantly, the Court concluded that the burden of proof lay on the owners corporation and that it had chosen to carry out limited destructive testing in three bathrooms only when there was no reason why it could not had done so in all of the units.

In the case involving the townhouse complex in Tweed Head South, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning in Kell & Rigby and concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to support the inference that the balcony waterproofing defect in two townhouses provided a basis for finding that the same defect existed in all 26 townhouses which have front first floor balconies.

Importantly, the Court held that it could not rely on the opinion of the owners corporation’s expert that the defect was systemic due to similar construction details being present in all townhouses because it was not known whether the waterproofing defects that had been identified in two of the townhouses were caused by faulty design or shoddy workmanship.  For all of these reasons, the Court rejected the owners corporation’s claim that the defect on the outer edge of the balconies was a systemic one that affected all such balconies and instead only accepted that the defect existed in two of the balconies that had actually been inspected and tested by the owners corporation’s experts.

Conclusion

The case provides a salutary lesson for owners corporations who wish to pursue a claim against a builder, developer or subcontractor for systemic defects.  Typically, the owners corporation will need to go the extra mile and pay its expert to inspect more than just a handful of lots to ensure that adequate testing and investigations are undertaken to enable the expert to form an opinion that will allow the owners corporation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defect in question is widespread and systemic.  In some cases, this will require the expert to inspect and undertake testing and investigations in all of the lots, which in a large strata building, can be expensive.  But that is the unfortunate price an owners corporation must sometimes pay in order to succeed in a claim with respect to systemic defects.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687


Adrian Mueller Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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.




Rain and Common Property Repairs – Who’s Responsible?

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 Specialist Strata Lawyer, Accredited Property Law Specialist, Litigator

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.




Replacing Common Property Tiles – Must they Match?

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 Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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.




Your Strata Scheme is Being Sued for $850 Million

 

Lot Owner Claims Damages of $850 Million!

Generally we use these  bulletins for educational purposes,  but it’s getting toward that time of the year when everything goes a little crazy in the world of strata title, and so today the emphasis is on providing you with sheer relief that your strata scheme is not tied up with the sort of case in which a decision was recently made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where a lot owner commenced proceedings against the owners corporation claiming damages of $850 million!

The Strata Dispute Lot Owner Vs Owners Corporation

The dispute, between the occupant of an apartment located in Sydney and the owners corporation,  began life as a tenancy dispute, but the occupant (tenant), having failed to enlist the support of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT),  brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking among other things damages of $850 million against the owners corporation! You can imagine the insurer’s claims manager when that came through…

Needless to say, the proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW were, to use the words of the Supreme Court Judge dealing with the final version of the proceedings, “frivolous and vexatious” and an abuse of the process of the Court.  Notwithstanding this, the plaintiff lot occupant filed applications of various kinds in the proceedings, made scandalous allegations against the owners corporation’s legal representatives, court officials and even a judge of the Court.

At the heart of the lot occupant’s claim was the suggestion that the owners corporation had somehow been involved in a criminal conspiracy which allegedly caused the plaintiff loss and damage.

Finally, on the sixth application before the Court (some of those applications being interlocutory applications for stays, injunctions and applications for recusal of various judges) the entire application was dismissed and the lot occupant was ordered to pay the owners corporation’s legal costs on an indemnity basis.  This means that the owners corporation was entitled to recover from the lot occupant not only the normal (“party/party”) costs but almost all the legal costs it had expended in having to deal with this application.

Conclusion

So as we head towards the end of the year, and if you are experiencing stress due to the matters which your owners corporation has to deal with, just remember – at least you haven’t been served with a law suit for $850 million!

If you do have issues in your strata scheme JS Mueller & Co Strata Lawyers have the experience and ability to assist you in dealing with these issues, whether they are disputes relating to the operation of the committee, questions about property and renovations, dealing with adjoining land owners and more please contact us on the details below for further assistance.


Warwick van Ede Strata Lawyer, Accredited Property Law Specialist, Litigator

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.




Don’t You Dare Sue Me – Overstepping the Mark

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 Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata Law

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.