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

The Case

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

The Problem

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

The Decision

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Adrian Mueller 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.

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 Scenario

Mr Smith owns a residential lot in a strata building in Sydney.  The floor tiles in Mr Smith’s bathroom have cracked and are damaged beyond repair.  The building was constructed 30 years ago so matching replacement tiles cannot be found.  Is Mr Smith entitled to insist on the owners corporation re-tiling his whole bathroom so that the bathroom tiles have a uniform finish?  In this article we explore the answer to that question.

The Law

An owners corporation has a statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property and, where necessary to renew or replace any fixtures or fittings that form part of the common property under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

This duty requires the owners corporation to replace an item of common property when it is reasonably necessary to do so because, for example, the item has been damaged beyond repair: Glenquarry Park Investments Pty Ltd v Hegyesi [2019] NSWSC425.

So what happens when tiles on the floor or a wall of a bathroom that form part of the common property are damaged beyond repair but matching tiles cannot be found.  Can the owners corporation just replace the damaged tiles doing the best it can?  Or does the owners corporation have to re-tile the entire bathroom to ensure a uniform tiled finish?

Replacing Damaged Tiles

Where tiles are damaged beyond repair and matching tiles cannot be sourced, the duty of the owners corporation is to use replacement tiles that are substantially similar in appearance, characteristics, quality and amenity to the existing tiles.  This can require the owners corporation to replace a larger section of tiles to achieve substantial similarity: Selkirk v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2661 [2024] NSWCATAP 17.

However, this does not necessarily mean that, where matching tiles cannot be found, the owners corporation is responsible for re-tiling the entire bathroom.  There are a number of cases which make this clear.

The Cases

1. In Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & ors [2010] NSWSC 1507 a lot owner did work which damaged five tiles on a bathroom wall in another lot. The owner of the damaged bathroom applied for an order that the other owner compensate her for the cost to re-tile the whole bathroom because matching tiles could not be found. The Court rejected that claim and was unpersuaded that such a course was reasonable, particularly in the absence of evidence establishing that a reasonably approximate matching tile, albeit not a precise match, was unachievable. The Court allowed an amount to cover the cost of re-tiling the damaged wall only.
2. In Petropoulos v CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/as The Bathroom Exchange (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 233 a builder renovated a bathroom and an ensuite bathroom for a homeowner but built the shower recesses too small. The owner wanted the builder to re-tile the whole bathroom floor after enlarging the shower recesses because matching tiles could no longer be found and the owner was concerned that a patch repair would compromise the waterproofing membrane. NCAT’s Appeal Panel rejected the owner’s request and concluded that it was reasonable for the builder to attempt to match the tiles rather than completely re-tiling each bathroom. The builder was ordered to ensure that replacement tiles were of the same colour, dimensions and type as the original tiles, or if no identical replacement tiles were available, of a colour that most closely matched the original tiles.
3. In The Owners – Strata Plan No 74602 v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1916 an owners corporation sued a builder for defects. The owners corporation alleged that there were waterproofing defects in bathrooms due to incorrectly installed water stop angles as a result of which bathrooms needed to be completely re-tiled due to the difficulties in obtaining matching tiles, even though only a small number of tiles needed to be replaced. The Court concluded that this would amount to the complete demolition and reconstruction of the bathrooms which was unreasonable and unnecessary particularly as there was no evidence of water leakage from the bathrooms.
4. In SP 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612 an owners corporation sued a builder for various defects including waterproofing defects in bathrooms. The owners corporation asked the Court to order the builder to pay damages to cover the cost of re-tiling all of the bathrooms because matching tiles could not be found and owners were entitled to a uniform tiled finish in their bathrooms. The Court concluded that it would be unreasonable for an owner to insist on replacement of a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match could be found and installed in a place (such as an architectural break) where the joinder of the tiles would not be immediately obvious. The Court held that the floor tiles within the showers in the affected lots should be replaced, making use of an appropriate existing architectural break, and that it was not reasonable for the owners corporation to insist upon the complete re-tiling of the entirety of the bathrooms.

Analysis

These cases demonstrate that both NCAT and the Supreme Court have rejected claims for entire bathrooms to be re-tiled when a small section of tiles are damaged or defective and perfectly matching tiles cannot be found.

However, in general, the owners corporation will still need to ensure that the work it does to replace the damaged tiles achieves an acceptable aesthetic finish.  This may require the owners corporation to re-do more than just replace the damaged tiles.  It can require the owners corporation to replace, for example, one or more walls which contain damaged tiles or an entire shower recess by making use of appropriate architectural breaks.

Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts but it will often be the case that it will be unreasonable for an owner to insist on an owners corporation replacing a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match can be found to achieve an acceptable aesthetic finish.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

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

Contact Us

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

Strata Disputes – Under the Ground up in the Air and Everywhere in Between 

Strata disputes and common property come in all shapes and sizes, especially when dealing with neighbouring property owners.

As owners of real property, owners corporations find themselves dealing with the owners of neighbouring land in a multitude of circumstances.

Neighbouring Land Disputes

• Easements
• Ground Anchors
• Cranes
• Scaffolding
• Trees, Fences and Walls
• Law of Nuisance
• Damage and Liability
• And even, landslides

You’ve probably had reason to deal with one or more of the above – but if you haven’t, then get ready, because you almost certainly will at some point in time!

Read on… Common Property and Dealing with Adjoining Owners

DEALING WITH NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY – DO YOU NEED AN EASEMENT?

Warwick van Ede I BEc LLM I Lawyer

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

Contact Us

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

There are more than 85,000 strata schemes in NSW with approximately one in seven NSW residents living in strata apartments and it’s estimated by 2040 this will grow by 50 percent in Greater Sydney!

So, it’s no suprise that the number of people living in strata applying to NCAT for orders to resolve strata disputes has significantly increased by 45% over the last 5 years.

Cases related to water leaks, delays in fixing leaks and claims for compensation for rental loss have played a major role in the growth of NCAT cases.

In this article we take a closer look at the responsibility of an owners corporation to repair common property water leak damage.

The Duty to Repair

Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Act) imposes on an owners corporation a duty to:

(a) properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property;

(b) where necessary, renew or replace any fixtures or fittings comprised in the common property.

This duty requires an owners corporation to fix any defects in the common property that are allowing water to leak into a lot.

The Nature of the Duty to Repair

The duty of the owners corporation to maintain and repair common property has been considered in a number of cases.

In those cases, the Supreme Court and NCAT has said that the duty to repair common property:

(a) is compulsory;

(b) is absolute; and

(c) is not a duty to use reasonable care to maintain and repair common property or to take reasonable steps to do so but a strict duty to maintain and keep in repair.

This means that an owners corporation cannot delay any repairs that need to be carried out to fix defects in the common property that are causing water to leak into a lot.  Even if it is impossible to find contractors who are available to repair those defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying any necessary repairs to common property.

Other Aspects of The Duty to Repair

There are other aspects of the duty to repair common property that are often overlooked particularly in the case of new buildings or where a tenant damages common property.

The Supreme Court and NCAT have held that the duty to repair common property:

(a) extends to require the remediation of defects in the original construction of the building;

(b) must still be fulfilled even if the owners corporation did not cause the damage to the common property which needs to be repaired.

This means that, in general, an owners corporation cannot blame an original builder or developer for defects in the common property and refuse to fix them.  However, if the owners corporation takes legal action against a builder or developer in respect of defects in the original construction of the common property, then the owners corporation can put on hold its obligation to repair common property defects.

Further, the cases say that even if a person damages the common property, in general, the owners corporation must still repair that damage, even though it may have a right to recover the cost of that repair from the offender.  Alternatively, under section 132 of the Act, the owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to require an owner or occupier to repair damage to the common property caused by them.  It appears that if the owners corporation takes legal action against an owner or occupier in NCAT to obtain that order, that allows the owners corporation to put on hold its duty to repair the damage.

Anything Else?

The duty to repair the common property also requires the owners corporation to carry out repairs which are not for the benefit of the majority of owners.  Indeed, the owners corporation is obliged to carry out repairs to the common property that only benefit a single owner.  This means that an owners corporation cannot refuse to repair a leaking window on common property on the basis that the leak only affects one lot.

Is there an Escape Route?

There are generally two ways for an owners corporation to relieve itself from its duty to repair common property (apart from the ways we have discussed above).

First, an owners corporation can pass a special resolution at a general meeting to determine that it is inappropriate to repair a particular item of common property.  This can be done under section 106(3) of the Act but only if the decision will not affect the safety of the building or detract from the building’s appearance.

Second, an owners corporation can make a common property rights by-law that transfers its responsibility for the repair of a particular item of common property to one or more owners.  The by-law needs to be approved by a special resolution at a general meeting.  However, the by-law also needs to be approved by the owners who will be responsible for repairing the item of common property under the by-law.  Often it proves difficult to obtain the consent of those owners.

What about Compensation?

Inclement weather can cause a substantial increase in claims for compensation being made by owners against owners corporations who have failed to repair defects that have allowed water to leak into and cause damage to lot property.  Typically, those claims are made by investor owners for rental loss when the damage to their lots become so severe that the lots are uninhabitable.  But compensation claims can also cover alternate accommodation expenses if an owner occupier is forced to move out of a lot due to damage caused by water ingress, the costs an owner incurs cleaning and repairing lot property (e.g. replacing saturated carpet), experts’ fees and legal costs.  The liability of an owners corporation to pay compensation to an owner is a strict one.

This can make it difficult for owners corporations to defend compensation claims that are made by owners as a result of common property defects that allow water to leak into and damage lot property. Indeed, one Court has remarked that this puts an owners corporation into the position of an insurer.

Conclusion

Even though it may be difficult to find contractors who are able to repair common property defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying essential repairs and maintenance.  The duty to repair is a strict one and there are limited exceptions to that rule.  This emphasizes the importance of proactive and ongoing building maintenance to help avoid the problems that many owners corporations are now encountering.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

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

Contact Us

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

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.

Recent heavy rainfall in Sydney has led to an increase in compensation claims by lot owners against owners corporations due to water leakage and consequential damage.

Often, those claims are for loss of rent.

These types of claims are usually difficult for an owners corporation to defend because it has a strict duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property.

However, in a recent case, the Supreme Court rejected a compensation claim by an owner for loss of rent, providing a glimmer of hope for owners corporations.

Here we share the case and outcome Supreme Court Rejects Owners Claims for Damages

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 a win for strata managers and owners corporations who have buildings under 6 years old.

You now have an avenue to pursue the rectification of any common property for major building defects, subject to eligibility.

Here we share the following:

• Key information
• What is Project Intervene?
• Who is Eligible?
• What is classified as common property?
• What is a serious defect?
• How do I register for ‘Project Intervene’?
• Related information

For specific information visit NSW Government ‘Project Intervene‘

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.

What type of resolution must an owners corporation pass in order to authorise a change to common property?

The strata legislation allows an owners corporation to replace common property with the authority of an ordinary resolution.

But the legislation also says that an owners corporation cannot upgrade common property unless it first passes a special resolution.

Where is the line drawn between replacing and improving common property?

In this article we take a closer look at this much vexed issue: Changing Common Property_ An Ordinary or Special Resolution?

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.