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.

Good renovation by-laws will protect all parties such as the owners corporation, the lot owner (and future owners) plus ensure any renovations to a lot, in particular structural, are safe for the building.

A good renovation by-law will outline items such as:

• A clear statement of the authorised work
• The time frame for completion
• Setting out any conditions that must be met
• All contractors details and their insurances
• Development consents
• Recording all works, including structural works
• Conditions that the lot owner and their contractor/s must adhere to
• How waste is to be dealt with
• Hours of work to minimise noise and disturbance to neighbours and the building
• Access and parking requirements to ensure minimal disturbance to other lot owners and common property areas
• Who is responsible for any ongoing maintenance
• Ensuring that all work complies with relevant standards and legislation such as the Building Code of Australia and the Design & Building Practitioners Act 2020
• Any nuances and more!

Why is it important to ensure that renovation by-laws are thorough?

Apart from wanting the renovation to run smoothly, the type of by-law to be used will depend on the renovation that is being undertaken. For example:

• Is the renovation a bathroom or kitchen renovation involving waterproofing or changes to floor coverings; and
• do you need a cosmetic, minor or major renovations by-law?

The tighter the renovation by-law the less likely there will be issues however in the event of an issue a well written by-law will more than likely get things back on track, minimising any disputes. A badly written renovation by-law may only exacerbate the situation and cause unwanted delays and disputes and may even end up in NCAT.

 Are you in need of a renovation by-law?

Our legal team has significant expertise developing renovation by-laws for strata, company, and community living.

• We have been developing renovation by-laws for 40+ years.
• We know whether you will require a by-law for renovations for owners corporation approval.
• We guarantee within 7 days you will receive the right renovation by-law.
• We also understand that you ‘may’ need your renovation by-law urgently for an upcoming strata meeting – just let us know, we will make it happen.

DO YOU NEED A RENOVATION BY-LAW? 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.

In a significant victory for owners corporations across Australia, the High Court has ruled that builders and developers cannot escape liability for negligent construction work. The landmark decision in Pafburn Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 affirms that developers and head contractors bear a non-delegable duty to ensure the quality of construction, even if the work is outsourced to subcontractors. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the building industry and provides greater protection for property owners.

On 11 December ds2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the case of Pafburn Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674. The key findings of the decision are as follows:

Key Findings

1. Appeal Dismissed: The appeal by Pafburn Pty Limited and Madarina against the NSW Court of Appeal decision in favour of the owners corporation was dismissed with costs. This means that the decision is in favour of the owners corporation.
2. Non-Delegable Duty: The court held that the duty imposed by Section 37(1) of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBPA) is a non-delegable duty. This means that the developer and the head building contractor cannot limit their liability by delegating construction work to others.
3. Proportionate Liability: The court found that the proportionate liability scheme under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) does not apply to claims for breach of the duty under Section 37 of the DBPA. The liability for breach of this duty is personal and cannot be apportioned among concurrent wrongdoers.
4. Vicarious Liability: The court clarified that Section 5Q of the CLA, which deals with liability based on non-delegable duties, applies to the duty under Section 37(1) of the DBPA. This means that the developer and the head building contractor are treated as vicariously liable for the negligence of those to whom they delegated construction work.
5. Economic Loss: The court confirmed that the owners corporation is entitled to claim damages for economic loss caused by defects in the building arising from the construction work, as per Section 37(1) of the DBPA.
6. Legislative Intent: The court emphasised that the DBPA was enacted to address public concerns about building defects and to ensure that owners have effective redress for economic loss caused by such defects. The provisions of the DBPA are intended to impose individual and collective responsibility on building practitioners for their work.
7. Outcome: The matter was remitted to hearing to determine whether the list response pleading can be maintained against all alleged wrongdoers, specifically whether they can be characterised as persons who carry out construction work under the DBPA.

These findings reinforce the non-delegable nature of the duty of care imposed on developers and head contractors under the DBPA and clarify the interaction between the DBPA and the CLA. This is good news for an owners corporation because it means that a builder and developer cannot attempt to limit or apportion their liability by arguing that the work was done by someone else, in other words, their duty cannot be delegated to a subcontractor (non-delegable duty).

An owners corporation can still take direct action against subcontractors (if necessary), although the owners corporation must be able to establish that the subcontractors carried out construction work within the meaning of the DBPA and breached the duty in section 37 of DBPA. We also note that the decision does not prevent cross claims by the builder and developer.

Complex Area of Law

This is a complex area where we have significant experience please contact us if you have a similar case.

Helen Amanatiadis I LLB LLM I Lawyer

Helen is admitted as a practitioner of the Supreme Court of NSW and High Court of Australia. Highly qualified Helen has over 25 years of experience in commercial dispute resolution, with a primary focus on building and construction and strata law. 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 Strata Hub is getting a major upgrade this December, with a raft of new features designed to streamline workflow and improve efficiency for strata managers and owners.

What Can You Expect from the Strata Hub Updates?

The new key features include:

• Transfer feature: This handy new tool will streamline the process of transferring strata records to a new managing agent.
• Vacant positions: Keep track of strata committee vacancies with the new vacant positions feature.
• Library of key resources: Strata Hub will now house a comprehensive library of essential resources, all in one place.
• Public strata search: Find the information quickly and easily with the new public strata search function.
• Streamlined scheme reporting: This allows strata managers to pull accurate and up-to-date data and reporting directly for schemes managed.
• Data validation: Ensure the accuracy of strata data with the new data validation tools.

These new features have been designed to make Strata Hub a more efficient, effective, and valuable resource for strata managers and owners.

Further details and training resources will be available in the coming weeks.

For more information visit NSW Government Strata Hub

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.

A Second Phase of Reform

New South Wales is gearing up for significant changes in strata law, as the second phase of recommendations from the statutory review is set to be implemented. The proposed changes, introduced to the NSW Parliament on 20 November, 2024, aim to address a range of issues affecting strata communities across the state.

Key Proposed Changes

While specific details may vary, the proposed changes are expected to cover a broad spectrum of areas, including:

Accountability for Developers

• Enhanced Developer Responsibility: Developers will be held more accountable for the accuracy of initial maintenance schedules and levy estimates provided for new strata developments.

Improved Strata Management

• Stricter Oversight: Increased oversight of strata management agreements to ensure transparency and fairness.
• Building Manager Duty: Introduction of a statutory duty on building managers to uphold specific obligations.

Protecting Owners’ Rights

• Fair Contract Terms: Safeguarding owners corporations from unfair contract terms in standard form contracts.
• Stronger Committee Governance: Imposing new duties on strata committee members to improve governance and decision-making.
• Common Property Maintenance: Reinforcing owners corporations’ obligations to maintain and repair common property.
• Enforcement Powers: Granting NSW Fair Trading additional powers to enforce common property maintenance obligations.

Sustainability and Accessibility

• Sustainability Focus: Encouraging sustainable practices by requiring owners corporations to consider sustainability in annual general meetings and levy estimates.
• Embedded Network Protections: Enhancing protections for owners and owners corporations regarding embedded networks.
• Accessibility Improvements: Facilitating the installation of support infrastructure for owners with additional needs.

 Other Enhancements

• Clarity and Efficiency: Implementing various changes to streamline strata law processes and improve clarity.
• Financial Hardship Support: Providing assistance to owners facing financial difficulties.

Impact on Strata Owners and Committees

These proposed changes are likely to have a significant impact on both strata owners and committees. Strata owners can expect increased protection and greater involvement in decision-making processes. Strata committees, on the other hand, may face additional responsibilities and regulatory requirements.

What’s Next?

As the proposed changes progress through the legislative process, it’s crucial for strata managers, strata owners and committees to stay informed. By understanding the implications of these reforms, you can better prepare for the future and ensure the smooth functioning of your strata communities.

More Information

For more information and insights on the proposed strata law changes visit NSW Government changes to strata laws

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.

Navigating the complexities of strata fencing can be a daunting task. Understanding responsibilities and the governing laws is crucial to avoid disputes and ensure a harmonious living environment.

The Dividing Fences Act: Your Strata Fencing Guide

The Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW) provides a framework for resolving fencing disputes between neighbouring lot owners within strata schemes. While the Act outlines general principles, it’s essential to consider the specific circumstances of your situation and advisable to get professional legal advice.

Key Points to Remember:

• Common Property Fences: The owners corporation is responsible for maintaining and repairing fences that divide common property from external areas but can claim a contribution for the cost to carry out fencing work from neighbours in many circumstances.
• Fences between Lots and Common Property: In most cases, the responsibility for these fences is either entirely borne by the owners corporation (where the fences are common property) or is shared equally between the lot owner and the owners corporation (where the fences are not common property).
• Fences between Lots: In most cases, owners share equal responsibility for building, maintaining, and repairing fences that separate their individual lots where those fences are not common property.

Fence Definitions: Not so Simple

Then there are hedges, ditches, structures, embankments, natural watercourses, walls, retaining walls, and parts of buildings and more, that have been used to create boundaries or a fencelike structure – are these considered dividing fences?

Expert Advice and Strata By-laws

Strata fencing bylaws also help to prevent disputes between lot owners and owners corporations about the responsibility for fencing maintenance and maintain a harmonious living environment.

If you’re unsure about who is responsible for a particular fence or wall, have a dispute or need by-law advice, speak to our specialist strata lawyers, we’re happy to assist.

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.

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.

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.

Is it Possible to Ban E-bikes and E-scooters?

There have been a recent spate of fires in Sydney apartment buildings caused by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.  Those fires have resulted in a number of strata buildings introducing by-laws to ban or regulate e-bikes and e-scooters.  But is it possible to ban e-bikes and e-scooters?

An owners corporation has a broad power to make by-laws to manage, control and administer the use of the lots and common property in its building.  This enables an owners corporation to make a by-law that stipulates what residents can and cannot do within their lots.

However, there are some restrictions on the by-law making power of an owners corporation.  In particular, a by-law cannot be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.  Any by-law that is, is unenforceable.

In 2020, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a ruling providing guidance on the circumstances in which a by-law will be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.  In that case, the Court said that if a by-law prohibits an activity that is capable of being carried out in a manner that does not have a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of the lots and common property by residents, then the by-law will be harsh, unconscionable and oppressive.

In that case, the Court concluded that a by-law banning pets in a strata building was harsh because it was possible for residents to keep some types of pets in the building without having a detrimental impact on the amenity of other residents: see Cooper v SP 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250.

This begs the question:

Can a By-law Prohibit the Charging of E-bikes and E-scooters in a Strata Building?

The answer to that question is most likely “no”.  This is because it is possible to charge e-bikes and e-scooters without creating a fire risk or otherwise having a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of the lots and common property by other residents.  Indeed, any by-law that bans e-bikes and e-scooters is not likely to be enforceable.

So what are the options for any owners corporation that wants to reduce the fire risk created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters?  There is nothing wrong with an owners corporation introducing a by-law that restricts the right of residents to charge e-bikes and scooters.  For example, a by-law could require residents to apply to and obtain the consent of the owners corporation to charge e-bikes and e-scooters in the building.

Further, a by-law could introduce rules that must be obeyed by residents to minimize the fire safety risk created by the charging of e-scooters and e-bikes.  For instance, a by-law could stipulate that residents need to ensure that their e-bikes and e-scooters (including the lithium batteries that power them and the chargers for them) comply with the applicable Australian standards, that residents periodically monitor their e-bikes and e-scooters whilst they are being charged and residents otherwise take all reasonable steps to minimize a fire safety risk created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.

Whilst it can be difficult to police by-laws that regulate the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters, doing so is not impossible and these by-laws at least give owners corporations the right to control the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters and to do something when residents disobey the by-law.

Can an E-bike and E-Scooter By-law Protect the Owners Corporation?

Further, these types of by-laws can provide the owners corporation with protection in the event that a resident disobeys the by-law and causes a fire when charging an e-bike or e-scooter.  For instance, a by-law could require the resident to indemnify the owners corporation against any property damage that is caused by such a fire and to cover the costs the owners corporation incurs repairing any damage caused by the fire.

Ultimately, the use of e-bikes and e-scooters is on the rise and this means that is now necessary for many owners corporations to grapple with the problem created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.  Introducing an appropriately worded by-law is best practice and will provide an owners corporation with the greatest amount of protection to minimize the risk of a fire caused by the charging of an e-bike or e-scooter.

DO YOU NEED AN E-BIKE AND 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.