Introduction

A meeting of an owners corporation or strata committee cannot be recorded without the consent of those present at the meeting.  This is because section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 prohibits a person using a listening device to record a private conversation and conversations at meetings that cannot be attended by members of the public involve private conversations.

But what happens when those present at a meeting know that the meeting is being recorded, do not object to the recording and allow the meeting to continue whilst it is being recorded?  In those circumstances, do those who attend the meeting grant their implied consent to the meeting being recorded?  A recent Supreme Court case helps provide the answer to that question.

Facts

Several people were having a conversation on a property.  One of them used a mobile phone to take a video recording of the conversation.  The recording of the conversation by use of the mobile phone was obvious.  And one of the people involved in the conversation stated that it was being recorded and explained why.  One of the parties to the conversation did not object to the recording and continued to converse with the others present.  A minute or so later that person said “What’s all this videoing shit?” whilst smiling and gesturing towards the camera as he continued to converse with the others. The person also raised his hand towards the camera at various times in order to placate the concerns of the others during a heated discussion about the removal of a power pole on their property.

The Decision

A dispute between the parties to the conversation ended up in the Supreme Court.  The person who was filmed objected to the video recording of the conversation being adduced in evidence.  The Court had to decide whether the video of the conversation was taken with the implied consent of that person.  The Court concluded that it was because that person had knowledge that the conversation was being recorded, he could see and was told that he was being filmed and he accepted that in order to continue to have the conversation with the others he would be filmed.  At no point did the person object to being filmed as a condition of continuing the conversation.  For these reasons, the Court permitted the video recording of the conversation to be admitted into evidence because it did not fall foul of the prohibition in section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.

Conclusion

The case provides a salutary lesson for those who attend meetings of an owners corporation or strata committee that are being recorded.  If those present know that the meeting is being recorded, do not object to the recording and continue with the meeting, then there is a good argument that they have impliedly consented to the recording of the meeting and cannot later object to the recording being used for any legitimate purpose including as evidence in litigation.

Case: Brown v Etna Developments Pty Ltd (Surveillance Devices) [2025] NSWSC 218

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.

NSW firefighters are battling a dramatic surge in lithium-ion battery fires, with more than one fire per day this month. This alarming trend has prompted fire officials to issue urgent warnings about potential fatalities and highlights the critical need for strict rules around lithium batteries, particularly within strata complexes.

The Growing Threat

The number of lithium-ion battery fires in NSW has increased significantly each year since 2022. Already in 2025, there have been 25 reported fires, with firefighters responding to more than one daily. A recent fire, suspected to be caused by an e-bike battery, underscores the danger.

Key Concerns for Strata

• Increased Frequency: The rapid rise in these fires poses a direct threat to the safety of residents and property within strata buildings.
• Recent Incidents: Multiple fires in quick succession demonstrate the volatile nature of these batteries and the potential for rapid escalation.
• Official Warnings: Fire and Rescue NSW officials have explicitly warned of the likelihood of fatalities from battery fires, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
• Improper Handling: The increasing use of these batteries, coupled with the potential for improper charging and storage, significantly elevates the risk in densely populated strata environments.

Data Highlights the Danger

• 2022: 165 fires
• 2023: 272 fires
• 2024: 318 fires
• 2025 (to date): 25 fires

Taking Proactive Steps in Strata

This surge in fires underscores the growing risk associated with lithium-ion batteries and the need for immediate action within strata. It is strongly recommended that strata committees consider implementing comprehensive by-laws addressing the following:

• E-bike and E-scooter Storage: Designating safe and appropriate storage areas, potentially away from common areas and flammable materials.
• Charging Regulations: Establishing clear guidelines for charging these devices, including restrictions on charging in common areas or overnight.
• Battery Disposal: Providing information and resources on the safe disposal of lithium-ion batteries.
• Resident Education: Raising awareness among residents about the fire risks associated with lithium-ion batteries and promoting safe handling practices.

For more information read the full media article here 

Protecting Your Community

By implementing a by-law and taking these proactive steps, strata committees can significantly reduce the fire risks associated with lithium-ion batteries. Prioritizing safety and working collaboratively with residents, building managers, and local authorities is crucial to ensuring a secure environment for the entire community. Don’t wait for a tragedy to happen – act now to protect your strata complex.

GET YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) BY-LAW HERE NOW!

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

Adding Further Building Defects to an Existing Claim

On 17 April 2023, the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the case of Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 90018 (Parkview), confirmed that an owners corporation can add new defects to an existing claim if the statutory warranty period in the Home Building Act 1989 (HBA) has not expired.

Supreme Court Amends Building Defects Statement of Claim

In the Parkview case, in the Supreme Court, the owners corporation sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add new defects. The Supreme Court granted permission to the owners corporation to add new defects to its existing claim.  The new defects that were added were not manifest when the owners corporation-initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court. Parkview appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Win for Owners Corporation

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court by confirming that the owners corporation was entitled to add new defects to its existing claim and the addition was not a new cause of action but part of a single cause of action being a breach by the builder of the statutory warranties under the HBA.

Parkview argued that the addition of new defects introduced a “new” cause of action, and those new causes of action were not the same as the existing cause of action that was on foot. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that in a conventional case for breach of contract, there is a single cause of action.  That cause of action is complete when a defective structure is provided irrespective of the number of ways in which those defects have manifested themselves.  The Court of Appeal said that even though the HBA has created inroads into common law principles, however, those changes brought by the HBA do not alter the nature of the owners corporation’s claim.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal said that a successor in title like an owners corporation sues a builder or a developer for statutory warranties under the HBA. The proceeding is based upon a breach of a single contract.  An amendment does nothing more than introduce further departures from the building contract that the builder and the developer had promised and that does not give rise to a new cause of action because the cause of action remains one, that is for a breach of the same contract.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the owners corporation’s amendments seeking to add new defects did not introduce a new cause of action and so the owners corporation was entitled to add them to its existing claim.

A Victory for Owners Corporations in NSW

This confirmation from the Court of Appeal is a great victory for owners corporations in NSW and it reconfirms the willingness of the judiciary to protect owners in strata schemes wherever it may be necessary.

Faiyaaz Shafiq I LLB GDLP I Lawyer

A highly experienced and respected, results driven Litigation Lawyer specialising in the areas of strata litigation, building & construction, commercial litigation, debt recovery, personal and company insolvency. 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.