The NSW Government has released a new guide to help strata property owners better understand the ins and outs of strata living.

The Strata Living Guide covers a range of essential topics, including by-laws, financial obligations, renovations, and dispute resolution.

Strata managers it is important that you share a copy of the Strata Living Guide to new and existing owners to help them better understand how strata living works.

The guide aims to empower strata owners by providing them with the knowledge and tools they need to effectively manage their properties and resolve common issues.

It also offers practical advice on how to navigate the complexities of strata living, such as understanding their rights and responsibilities, attending meetings, and making informed decisions.

Key topics covered in the guide include:

• The basics of strata
• Common property and individual ownership
• Key roles and responsibilities within a strata scheme
• Financial obligations and levies
• By-laws and rules governing strata schemes
• Meetings and decision-making processes
• Repairs and maintenance of common property
• Renovating your property
• Resolving disputes and conflicts

The NSW Government is committed to improving the regulatory framework for strata living and ensuring that all strata owners have access to the information they need to make informed decisions.

The Strata Living Guide is a valuable resource for anyone who owns or is considering purchasing a strata-titled property in NSW.

You can download the full guide here: NSW Strata Living Guide 

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 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

Strata Lot Owner and Owners Corporation in Dispute

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

Background

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

Owner’s Conduct

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

The Law

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

The Outcome

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

Anything Else?

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

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

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

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

Contact Us

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

There is a common misconception that an owners corporation is not responsible for repainting a water damaged ceiling in a lot or repairing consequential water damage to a lot that is caused by a common property defect.

In a recent case, NCAT held that:

• an owners corporation is responsible for carrying out those repairs;
• the common property memorandum does not exempt an owners corporation from having to perform those repairs.

Here we discuss the case and explain why an owners corporation is not exempt from repairing damage to lot property NCAT Orders Owners Corporation to Repair Lot Property

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

In a surprising decision, the Supreme Court has recently held that lot owners are able to start legal action in NCAT to force an owners corporation to grant them a licence to use common property before the owners corporation has rejected their proposal for a licence.

This decision will alter the strategy of some owners who want to obtain special rights over areas of common property and may result in the commencement of litigation to gain leverage over an owners corporation.

Ultimately this case gives NCAT a mandate to attempt to resolve strata disputes in a more flexible way.

Read the full case here Supreme Court, NCAT and A Load of Rubbish

For NSW strata legal, by-law, building defect and levy collection advice contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.