Lot Owners who Breach By-laws

An owners corporation is able to take legal action in NCAT against an owner who breaches its by-laws.

There are typically two types of legal action the owners corporation can take against the owner.

First, the owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to require the owner to comply with the by-laws or to stop breaching them.  Second, the owners corporation can ask NCAT to impose a monetary penalty on the owner if the owner has breached a by-law after being given a notice to comply with the by-law.

However, what happens when an owners corporation seeks both an order to stop an owner breaching a by-law and a penalty in the same legal action?  Can NCAT do both at the same time?

A recent decision by NCAT’s Appeal Panel sheds light on that issue.

Introduction to By-law Breach Case

Tania Brown lives in a unit in a strata building in NSW.  Ms Brown keeps dogs in her unit.

The building is governed by a by-law which requires owners and occupiers of lots to obtain owners corporation approval to keep dogs in their units.  The owners corporation alleged that Ms Brown had not obtained any approval to keep her dogs and that her dogs barked and caused a nuisance to other residents.

On 3 December 2021, the owners corporation issued Ms Brown with two notices to comply with by-laws.

The first notice alleged that Ms Brown had breached the noise by-law by allowing her dogs to constantly bark which disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of other residents.

The second notice alleged that Ms Brown had breached the keeping of animals by-law by having 4 large dogs within her unit without the approval of the owners corporation.

Prior to those notices being issued, Ms Brown had agreed to remove the dogs by 1 December 2021 in a settlement agreement made at a mediation conducted by NSW Fair Trading.

By-law Breach Legal Action

The owners corporation alleged that Ms Brown did not remove the dogs contrary to the settlement agreement and had continued to breach the by-laws after it issued the two notices to comply against her.

Consequently, the owners corporation commenced legal action in NCAT against Ms Brown.  In that legal action the owners corporation sought an order for Ms Brown to remove her dogs and a further order that Ms Brown be penalised $1,100.00 for contravening the by-laws after the notices to comply were issued against her.

In July 2022, the NCAT case was listed for a hearing at which the owners corporation was successful and orders were made, by the consent of Ms Brown and the owners corporation, to require Ms Brown to pay an $1,100.00 penalty to the owners corporation and remove all but one dog from her unit.  The order imposing the penalty would not apply if Ms Brown removed the dogs by 19 July 2022.

The Appeal Against NCAT

Shortly afterwards, Ms Brown filed an appeal against the orders made by NCAT, even though she agreed to those orders being made.  Despite that, Ms Brown’s appeal was successful.

The orders made by NCAT were set aside and the case was sent back to NCAT for a further hearing.

A Mixed Bag?

During the course of the appeal, NCAT’s Appeal Panel considered whether it was possible for an owners corporation to seek in the same proceedings in NCAT both an order to require an owner to comply with a by-law (in this case by removing dogs from a unit) and a further order for a monetary penalty to be imposed on the owner.

The Appeal Panel concluded that this was not possible essentially for three reasons.

First, different procedural rules apply to a mixed application seeking general orders and the imposition of a penalty because, for example, the rules of evidence do not apply to an application for general orders but, in contrast, the rules of evidence do apply to proceedings for the imposition of a penalty.

The Appeal Panel considered those different rules indicated that the Legislature intended that separate proceedings would need to be brought by an owners corporation to seek general orders and the imposition of a penalty.

Second, the Appeal Panel held that procedural fairness could not be afforded to the parties in mixed proceedings where different rules of evidence applied and a party could claim civil penalty privilege when giving evidence in proceedings for the imposition of a penalty but doing so would disadvantage that party in proceedings seeking general orders for compliance with the by-law.

Third, the Appeal Panel noted that different appeal rights exist in relation to an application for general orders and an application for the imposition of a penalty.  General orders can be challenged by way of an internal appeal to NCAT’s Appeal Panel whereas an appeal against a penalty needs to be filed in a Court.

The Appeal Panel concluded that the Legislature did not intend that an owner would be required to lodge two appeals to different bodies to challenge general orders and penalties made against him or her in the same proceedings in NCAT.

It was for these reasons that the Appeal Panel ordered the owners corporation to start again in NCAT and to only seek a general order to require Ms Brown to remove all but one of her dogs, not a penalty.

Conclusion

The decision of the Appeal Panel means that an owners corporation can no longer file one application in NCAT seeking both orders to require an owner or occupier of a lot to comply with a by-law and for a penalty to be imposed on the owner or occupier.

Instead, the owners corporation will either need to decide whether it wants to seek general orders or a penalty and commence one set of proceedings to seek either remedy or alternatively file two separate applications in NCAT, one seeking general orders for compliance with the by-law and the other seeking the imposition of a penalty.

No doubt commencing two separate proceedings would add to the time, cost and complexity of the case and quite possibly render it commercial unviable for an owners corporation to seek both general orders and a penalty against an owner or occupier who breaches its by-laws.

Case Name: Brown v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 82527 [2022] NSWCATAP 328

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. 

Strata Lot Owner and Owners Corporation in Dispute

Is it legitimate for a lot owner to pressure an owners corporation not to sue her or defend legal action she takes against the owners corporation?  And what happens when the lot owner oversteps the mark?  Can the owner be held in contempt of court?  A recent NCAT case considered that very issue.

Background

There is an apartment building on Sydney’s lower North Shore which contains 6 lots.  For several years, the owners corporation and a lot owner have been in dispute about various matters.  The dispute culminated in proceedings being commenced by both the owners corporation and the owner in NCAT against each other.  The owners corporation alleged that the owner engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate, harass and deter the owners corporation from defending the proceedings she had commenced in NCAT against the owners corporation or to improperly induce a settlement of those proceedings.  The owners corporation applied to NCAT to have the owner referred to the Supreme Court for contempt or a finding that the owner was in contempt of NCAT and that she be punished and restrained from communicating with representatives of the owners corporation in certain ways.

Owner’s Conduct

The conduct of the owner which the owners corporation considered constituted contempt included threats of disciplinary action against the owners corporation’s solicitor made by the owner, communications by the owner which impugned the professional and mental capacities and motives of the owners corporation’s solicitor, contact by the owner with partners of the firm at which that solicitor worked concerning the conduct of the solicitor, contact by the owner with employers of strata committee members and references to family members of the strata committee members made by the owner in various communications.  The case of the owners corporation was that those communications by the owner impermissibly sought to pressure the owners corporation into deciding not to defend, or to settle, the proceedings in NCAT that the owner had commenced against the owners corporation.

The Law

A person can commit a contempt of court if he or she seeks to dissuade a litigant from prosecuting or defending proceedings by making unlawful threats, by abuse or by misrepresenting the nature of the litigation.  The law distinguishes between proper and improper pressure in punishing interference with litigants.  The question is whether the pressure sought to be applied in a particular case can be described as improper which, in turn, depends on all the circumstances of the case.  Improper pressure can interfere with the administration of justice and that is why it can constitute a contempt of court.

The Outcome

NCAT concluded that whilst some of the owner’s communications were inappropriate and included abusive emails that were puerile in their tone and content, the owners corporation did not prove that those communications caused the representatives of the owners corporation to be intimidated or caused the owners corporation to capitulate or settle the proceedings the owner had commenced against it.  In other words, even though the owner may have engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate the owners corporation or its solicitor to discourage them from defending the proceedings, the evidence did not establish that the owner had been successful in doing so or had deterred, or was reasonably likely to deter, the owners corporation from defending the proceedings the owner had commenced against it or from prosecuting the proceedings it had commenced against the owner.  Consequently, NCAT concluded that it had not been established that the owner committed a contempt and therefore refused to refer the owner to the Supreme Court.

Anything Else?

The NCAT case contains an interesting, albeit brief, discussion of the consequences for an owner who sends threatening, rude or offensive communications to representatives of an owners corporation.  NCAT concluded that the owner’s communications may expose her to the risk of defamation proceedings and observed that communications which attempt to threaten, intimidate or influence witnesses are unlawful under the Crimes Act 1900 and that use of telecommunications devices, such as emails, that threaten or harass any person also constitutes criminal conduct under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004.  That indicates that representatives of the owners corporation who receive abusive, rude and offensive communications from an owner are not without remedy.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 38308 v Gelder (No. 2) [2023] NSWCATEN 7.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Does an owners corporation have to enforce its by-laws?  If an owners corporation decides to ignore breaches of its by-laws, can NCAT force the owners corporation to take action and enforce its by-laws?  A recent NCAT case provides the answer to these questions.

Introduction

Almost every strata building is governed by a set of by-laws. Those by-laws set out rules that regulate behaviour, noise, the keeping of pets and, among other things, the performance of renovations.  The by-laws are binding on the owners corporation and the owners and occupiers of the lots.  An owners corporation has the power to enforce the by-laws if they are breached.  For example, an owners corporation can issue an owner or occupier of a lot with a notice to comply with a by-law or apply to NCAT for an order to require the owner or occupier to obey a by-law.  But what happens when an owners corporation decides to turn a blind eye to a breach of a by-law committed by an owner?  Can the owners corporation be forced to enforce the by-law against the culprit?  If so, by whom?  A recent NCAT case reveals the answers to these questions.

The Case

Suzanne Lyon owns a lot in a residential strata scheme in Wollstonecraft, Sydney.  In August 2020, the owners corporation created a common property rights by-law to give the owner of the lot beneath Ms Lyon’s lot, Mr Swanson, the right to build a pergola over his rear courtyard.  Subsequently, Mr Swanson built the pergola, but Ms Lyon claimed that the pergola did not comply with the by-law because it was too high.  The by-law had permitted the pergola to be 2.7m above the concrete floor of the courtyard but it was built about 3.21m above that concrete floor.  Ms Lyon wanted the pergola to be removed or modified but the owners corporation was not prepared to force Mr Swanson to change the pergola.  For that reason, Ms Lyon sued the owners corporation in NCAT and sought orders to require the owners corporation to remove Mr Swanson’s pergola or enforce the common property rights by-law by requiring the pergola to comply with it.

The Outcome

Ms Lyon’s claim was partially successful.  NCAT agreed with Ms Lyon that the pergola was too high and was not built in accordance with the by-law.  NCAT then considered whether it had power to make an order to force the owners corporation to enforce the by-law and require Mr Swanson to comply with it by changing the height of the pergola.  NCAT concluded that it did have that power because it could make an order, on the request of an owner, to settle a complaint or dispute about the failure of an owners corporation to exercise its functions including its power to enforce a by-law.  NCAT held that there would be a sufficient basis to make an order where an owners corporation has a discretion to exercise a function (such as its discretionary power to enforce a by-law) but decides not to do so.  NCAT considered that there was little point in the strata legislation creating a mechanism for an owners corporation to pass a common property rights by-law merely to have that by-law flouted and for the owners corporation to fail to act in the face of complaints from other owners and legal advice it had received.  Ultimately, NCAT concluded that the owners corporation’s failure to manage Mr Swanson’s non compliance with the by-law, or to make any attempt to require him to comply with the by-law, meant that an order should be made requiring the owners corporation to exercise its functions to administer the strata scheme for the benefit of the owners and in accordance with the by-laws.

The Orders

For those reasons, NCAT ordered the owners corporation to take all necessary steps to require Mr Swanson to comply with the by-law by requiring him to reduce the height of the pergola to 2.7m above the concrete surface of his courtyard.  However, NCAT gave the owners corporation 6 months to comply with that order to allow Mr Swanson sufficient time to apply to the owners corporation for approval to amend the by-law to permit the pergola to remain at a height of 3.21m above the courtyard floor and for that amendment to the by-law to be approved by the owners corporation.

Analysis

This case is one of the first times that NCAT has made an order to compel an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws.  The decision does break new ground because it was previously thought that because the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 does not explicitly require an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws but rather gives an owners corporation a discretion to do so, it was not possible for NCAT to force an owners corporation to require owners and occupiers to comply with its by-laws.  The order made in the case begs the question: What does the owners corporation need to do to take “all necessary steps” to require an owner to comply with a by-law?  Does that require the owners corporation to issue a notice to comply with the by-law against the owner?  Or does it require the owners corporation to do more and, if necessary, take legal action against the owner to force him or her to comply with the by-law?  And what if the owners corporation is successful in that legal action, but the owner ignores orders that are made to require him or her to comply with the by-law?  What is the owners corporation required to do then?  It remains to be seen whether those questions will need to be answered by NCAT in the future.

Conclusion

The case sends a message that owners and occupiers of lots who are affected by breaches of the by-laws committed by other owners and occupiers are not helpless.  They can apply to NCAT for orders to force their owners corporation to enforce the by-laws against those in breach of them.  It remains to be seen whether the decision in Lyon v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 11045 [2023] NSWCATCD 31 will be followed in future cases.

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.

Strata apartments come with many perks for owners and tenants but of course, there’s also a downside with one of the biggest complaints being noise. As more and more people enjoy apartment living noise complaints have increased in recent times by 33%* and they continue to rise.

What are top noise complaints in strata?

• Barking dogs
• Power tools
• Loud music
• Alarms
• Construction/renovations
• Vehicles
• Wooden/tiled floors
• Children

And… some of the more unusual complaints in more recent times include:

• Tap dancing
• Assembling IKEA furniture
• Loud urinating at night is becoming one of the most common reasons for sleep-­deprived apartment dwellers
• Late night showers

What if your strata by-law neglects to mention specific issues around noise?

A well written noise by-law can go much further than the model by-law and provide residents with guidelines and time restrictions for when they can and can’t make noise. It also lets neighbours know their rights if they feel the need to make a noise complaint.

Did you know if your noise by-laws are insufficient or lacking clarity on noise related matters our specialist team of strata lawyers can assist you in updating or developing your noise by-law.

*NSW Department of Fair Trading

DOES YOUR NOISE BY-LAW NEED TO BE REVIEWED?

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.

Under a plan by the City of Sydney  all new apartment blocks will need to provide EV chargers and existing apartment blocks will need to retrofit EV chargers as the Council pushes to drive the uptake of EV’s and drive net zero emissions by 2035.

Retro Fitting EV Chargers

Many older apartment blocks are struggling with the concept of installing EV chargers, a major hurdle for the following reasons:

• The significant costs
• Navigating the current building infrastructure
• Questions about who pays for the new infrastructure?
• Uncertainty over who pays for the electricity used?
• Questions about how the EV owner is charged for electricity used and whether a by-law can introduce a user pays system for electricity costs
• Lack of information about EV charger installation
• Convincing lot owners who don’t own an EV (and may never) to contribute to the cost of installing EV charging infrastructure

The NSW Government’s promise in the upcoming elections to install 30,000 public charging stations across NSW is a positive move in the right direction.

However, in Europe more than 80% and in North America 70% of EV vehicles are charged in homes overnight.

So, perhaps the Government needs to further develop ways to assist with the uptake of retrofitting EV chargers in existing apartment blocks to ensure the City of Sydney (and other areas) reach their target of zero emissions by 2035.

In that regard, the NSW Treasurer recently announced that if the NSW Government is re-elected at the upcoming election, changes will be made to strata laws in NSW to make it easier to install EV Chargers in apartment buildings. The jury is still out on that announcement but it would be a step in the right direction.

For more information refer to these media articles:

• This is evolving quickly City of Sydney accelerates switch to electric vehicles.pdf
• Sydney council pledges to plug in to electric car trend
• 30,000 EV chargers across NSW by 2026

Do You Need an Electric Vehicle (EV) By-law?

Our specialist team of strata lawyers has drafted many by-laws permitting owners to install electric vehicle chargers in strata buildings. Our EV by-law considers and covers all essentials including these key issues:

• Who’s responsible for paying the cost of electricity used to charge electric vehicles
• Any necessary upgrades to the electricity infrastructure in the building
• Overloading the existing electrical infrastructure

DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE WITH AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY-LAW?

Can a by-law prohibit the cooking of food including toasting bread in a lot?

In short, the answer is “no” according to NCAT.  However, there is a silver lining in NCAT’s ruling.

The Background

There is a large residential strata building located in Newcastle, New South Wales.  The building contains 87 residential lots.  The building was previously an aged care facility.

The building contains a commercial kitchen for shared use by the building’s occupants.  Some of the lot’s also contain a kitchenette, other smaller lot’s do not and rely on the shared kitchen.

The By-law

The buildings cooking by-law prohibited the cooking of food in any lot without kitchen facilities. However, a lot owner objected to the by-law and applied to NCAT for an order to invalidate the by-law.

Here we share the case and outcome… NCAT Invalidates No Cooking By-law

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.

Could puffing on a cigarette or throwing a snag on the barbie be under threat after a significant decision by the NSW Court?

In short, a couple who owned an apartment in Kingscliff, Northern Rivers NSW took their neighbours to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for smoking on their balcony.

The couple accused their neighbours of smoking on the balcony causing smoke drift which leaked through to  the couples’ apartment air vents and their doors and windows, despite them being closed.

NCAT ruled in the couple’s favour stating that the neighbours (or any guests) were no longer permitted to smoke on their balcony.

Could this landmark ruling set a precedent for future smoke drift cases and perhaps result in a statewide ban for smoking on balconies in NSW and… could the good old ‘Aussie BBQ’ also be under threat?

Do you need a ‘smoke drift’ by-law or is it time to review your ‘smoke drift’ by-law?

The full media article can be read her

DO YOU NEED A ‘SMOKE DRIFT’ BY-LAW OR A REVIEW?

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

A recent hot topic has been the width of the powers given to NCAT to resolve strata disputes.

In particular, can NCAT resolve any strata dispute or just some disputes?

This interesting issue was considered in a recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT.

The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 gives NCAT power to make orders to settle complaints or disputes about the operation, administration or management of strata schemes or the exercise of functions of an owners corporation.  But the width of that power is not entirely clear.

For example, does the power allow NCAT to make an order to resolve any strata dispute?

Here we share a recent case outcome Can NCAT Resolve Any Strata Dispute or Just Some Disputes?

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.