A lot owner has an apartment in a strata scheme with shared facilities with a pool, sauna and gym however the owner does not live in that strata scheme because they have rented their apartment out – can they still use the pool, sauna and gym, deemed as shared facilities?

The answer may not be that straight forward and raises many questions:

• They have rented out their apartment, but the lot owner still pays the levies so wouldn’t they be entitled to use the shared facilities?
• Even though the lot owner still pays the levies have they signed their rights over to the tenants for use of the shared facilities once they lease the property?
• Can the lot owner prohibit their tenants from using the apartment facilities thereby by doing so, the owner can have complete access to the facilities as after all they pay the levies?
• Perhaps the lot owner can still use the facilities, unless there is a specific by-law which prohibits them from using the shared facilities?

The answer is typically this:

• When an owner leases their lot, they also lease their interests in the common property to their tenant.
• This means the owner forfeits his or her right to use the common property facilities such as the pool, sauna and gym.
• In some cases a shrewd owner might change the lease to reserve to the owner the right to continue to use the common property facilities.
• It is unlikely this would be legally effective because an owner’s interest in the common property cannot be dealt with separately from, or severed from, his or her interest in their lot.
• However, an astute owner could decide not to lease out part of the lot such as storage room or one of two car spaces. In doing so, the owner could retain his or her interest in the common property and the right to use the common property facilities.

Do you need to review your by-laws?

In some cases it can be very useful to put in place a by-law that makes these rules clear to ensure that common property facilities are not overused.

NEED TO UPDATE YOUR COMMON PROPERTY FACILITIES BY-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

The NSW Government is looking to combat the fastest-growing cause of fires by implementing new product standards for lithium-ion batteries.

NSW Fire and Rescue recorded more than 90 incidences over the 2022-23 period with fires caused by lithium-ion battery powered products and, it continues to escalate.

In response to the growing incidences, NSW Government is taking a proactive stance to ensure products comply with safety standards and are appropriately tested, certified and marked before they enter the market.

When these changes come into effect suppliers, both corporations and individuals, who do not comply will incur heavy penalties.

The prevention of fires, saving lives and protecting property are high on the agenda for the NSW Government as the reality is that e-bikes, e-scooters and other e-devices are here to stay.

For more information visit Media and NSW Government

REDUCE YOUR RISK WITH AN E-BIKE / E-SCOOTER BY-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.

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

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

Understanding the Owners Corporation’s Responsibility

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

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

Strict Liability and the Duty to Repair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

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

Contact Us

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

The NSW government has announced that it will introduce strata laws aimed at improving transparency in the industry.

Increasing the maximum penalties and penalty infringement notice amounts around strata managing agents’ obligations to disclose commission information are among some of the planned changes

In summary the NSW Government will implement new laws around:

• Stricter rules on matters such as commissions
• Tougher conflicts of interest disclosure requirements
• Increased penalties that can be imposed on strata agents
• The banning of agents from taking a commission when they do not play a role in finding the best deal for strata residents
• Strengthening NSW Fair Trading’s enforcement and compliance powers

The NSW government will consult with the industry ahead of introducing legislation in the coming weeks.

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.

Starting 1 July 2024, NSW Fair Trading will introduce updated regulations for strata, real estate and stock & station agents.

The key changes to these regulations will include:

Supervision Guidelines

These changes outline stricter requirements for how agencies:

• Oversee their operations
• Ensure legal compliance
• Ensure ethical conduct
• Prevent fraud

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Agents will also need to complete annual CPD training covering four mandatory topics specific to their license type. The mandatory topics for strata are:

Strata Managing Agents

• Strata law reforms 2023-24
• Introduction to work health and safety obligations in strata management
• New Supervision Guidelines for strata managing agencies
• Best practice management of building defects, maintenance and repair

The aim of these changes is to improve service quality, set higher standards and expectations to ensure protection of NSW consumers.

Introducing these changes also ensures that agents stay current with industry knowledge and best practices.

For more detailed information and to download your copy of ‘2024 Supervision Guidelines’ please visit NSW Fair Trading.

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.

Restricting or Banning Smoking in Strata

As of 1 May 2024 body corporate’s in Queensland are permitted to introduce by-laws that specifically prohibit or restrict smoking or inhaling of smoking products on common property of strata buildings.

As Queensland grapples with these changes, in NSW there are still many buildings that do not have a by-law concerning smoking, even though they are permitted to do so. This has raised questions such as:

• Is it possible to stop people smoking in a strata building without a by-law that bans smoking?
• If it is possible to stop smoking without a by-law, is it still necessary or desirable to have a by-law that bans or restricts smoking and, if so, why?

Banning Smoking without a By-Law

Somewhat surprisingly, it is possible to stop residents of a strata building smoking in their lots or on common property without a specific by-law that prohibits smoking.  Section 153 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 prohibits residents from using or enjoying their lots in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to another resident. There have been several cases over the past years in which NCAT has made orders prohibiting residents in strata buildings from smoking on the basis that smoke caused by smoking constituted a nuisance to other residents in contravention of section 153.

NCAT Smoking Cases

In May 2019, a lot owner, Martin Gisks, succeeded in obtaining an order from NCAT prohibiting the resident of another lot in his building smoking on her balcony or in her bedrooms and requiring that resident to close all exterior doors and bedroom and bathroom windows when smoking inside her lot (Gisks v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 6743 [2019] NSWCATCD 44).

In October 2022, lot owners in a different building, Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright, obtained orders from NCAT prohibiting the owners of another lot smoking or permitting any other person to smoke tobacco products on the balcony of their lot, and prohibiting them from permitting smoke from any tobacco product to be emitted from the interior of their lot into the lot of Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright (Pittman v Newport [2022] NSWCATCD 173).

More recently, in June 2023, an owner in a strata building, Haydn Shaw, obtained an NCAT order prohibiting the owner and resident of another lot permitting the smoking of tobacco products in the courtyard of their lot (Shaw v Euen [2023] NSWCATCD 68).

In each case, NCAT concluded that the smoke caused by the smoking of cigarettes or tobacco products by residents constituted a nuisance which interfered with the amenity of other residents in contravention of section 153 of the Act.  It was on that basis that NCAT made orders prohibiting or restricting smoking in each of these cases.

Is a By-Law Banning Smoking Desirable?

These NCAT cases beg the obvious question:  does an owners corporation need to bother introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking?  The answer is “Yes” if the owners corporation wants to make it easier to ban or restrict smoking in its building.

This is because without a by-law that bans or restricts smoking:

• the owners corporation may not have standing to apply to NCAT for orders to prohibit residents smoking in a way that causes a nuisance to other residents because the owners corporation itself has not suffered from that nuisance (The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2245 v Veney [2020] NSWSC 134); and
• there is a need to prove that not only particular residents are smoking but also that the smoke from cigarettes or tobacco products has caused a nuisance to other residents by unreasonably and substantially interfering with the use and enjoyment of their lots (something which may be difficult to do).

In other words, if a by-law exists that bans smoking the owners corporation is able to enforce that by-law and to succeed it does not need to show that smoke from cigarettes constitutes a nuisance to other residents.  The owners corporation just needs to prove that particular residents are smoking in breach of the by-law.  That is much easier to do.

Conclusion

It is possible to stop residents smoking without a by-law that bans smoking.  However, it is much more difficult to do so because it requires proof that the smoking causes a nuisance to other residents.  And, there is real doubt that an owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to stop residents smoking in those circumstances.

Introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking overcomes those problems, gives the owners corporation the right to take steps through NCAT to prevent residents smoking and makes it easier for the owners corporation to win the case and put an end to smoking in its building.

DO YOU NEED A BY-LAW THAT PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS SMOKING? CLICK 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.

Did you know that over 5.6 million Australian households shop online every month and it’s expected to generate $35.92 billion this year growing annually by 8.33% over the next 4 years.*

The impact of this has put significant pressure on strata living.

As more and more people shop online utilising the convenience of home deliveries more and more parcels are delivered to apartment building foyers/onsite left for lot owners and tenants to collect.

But what happens if a parcel is not collected?

• How long can a parcel be left in the building foyer/onsite before it becomes rubbish?
• Is the parcel rubbish or is it in fact an abandoned good?
• Who decides if it is rubbish or an abandoned good?
• Who monitors how long the parcel has been sitting in the foyer or onsite before it becomes rubbish or an abandoned good?
• Whose responsibility is it to locate the owner?
• Should they be returned to the sender and who’s responsibility is that?
• If it is deemed rubbish or an abandoned good who’s responsible for its disposal?
• What if it’s perishable or non-perishable does that change things?
• What about the rubbish created, recycling etc?

Need a Review of your Waste and Abandoned Goods By-law?

The lesson here is to ensure that your by-law is current and in-line with today’s ever-changing world.

Most likely your waste and abandoned goods by-law is out of date and requires a review – click here now for a review.

YOUR WASTE AND ABANDONED GOODS BY-LAW MAY NEED A REVIEW

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

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

Contact Us

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

Who is Responsible for Common Property Repairs Caused by Rain?

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

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

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

In the article below we discuss…

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

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

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

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

Warwick van Ede I BEc LLM I Lawyer

Since 1990, Warwick has specialised in strata law, property law and litigation. Recognised for his expertise, he is also a NSW Law Society Accredited Specialist in Property Law. In 2021 he was selected to serve on the Property Law Committee of the Law Society of NSW. Profile I LinkedIn

Contact Us

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