Is Your Landlord Planning Strata Renovations?

Spring has sprung!

Is your landlord planning to do strata renovations – cosmetic, minor or major?

Did you know in NSW there are different rules that your landlords must follow for the 3 types of renovations when renovating their strata apartment?

1. Cosmetic Work

Landlords can generally do cosmetic work without approval from the owners corporation however this will depend on the types of renovation by-laws in place. Be sure to check what by-laws apply in their strata scheme as the owners corporation could have changed what is classified as cosmetic work or have a renovation by-law requiring approval to do cosmetic work.

2. Minor Renovations

If your landlord is planning to carry out minor renovations, then approval from the owners corporation is required.

Project plans, a timeline and details of all qualified trades or contractors who will carry out the minor renovations are also required to be submitted for approval. All lot owners will then vote on the project at an Annual General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting – the landlord will need over 50 percent in favour for the project to proceed.

3. Major Renovations

For major renovations you must obtain approval by a special resolution (a 75% majority) at a meeting of the owners corporation, and a special renovation by-law is also required to authorise the work.

Again, project plans, a timeline and details of all qualified trades or contractors who will carry out the major renovations will need to be also provided to seek approval.

Does Your Landlord Require a Renovation By-law?

We have 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.


GET THE RIGHT RENOVATION BY-LAW HERE!

Contact Us

Do you require a renovation by-law or any other strata or property legal advice? Contact us here now, we’re happy to help.

Follow Us


Linkedin


Twitter


Envelope




Recording Meetings: A Supreme Court Case

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 Partner JS Mueller & Co Lawyers specialising in Strata 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.




Safe Work Prosecutes Strata Manager, OC & Lot Owner

In August of this year the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court of New South Wales handed down the last of a series of decisions in relation to the penalties to be imposed on a strata scheme, strata manager and lot owner respectively, arising from a death which had occurred following a damaged gate in an industrial strata scheme falling on a person.

Although these decisions focus upon the criminal prosecution brought against the strata scheme strata manager and lot owner by Safe Work NSW, the circumstances are illustrative for owners corporations and strata managers generally.

Background Incidents

The strata scheme in question was an 8 lot industrial strata scheme around which was built a perimeter fence including a custom-built sliding electric gate.  The gate included guide posts and an end stopper to prevent the gate from over travelling in the closing direction.  The gate was approximately 8.5 metres long and 2 metres high.

In June 2020 an incident occurred whereby the gate was impacted at high speed by a van.  Although the gate remained upright it was bent out of shape, partially pulled off its track and disconnected from its electric motor.  In addition, the guide posts for the gate were damaged and the stopper had come out of position and was no longer capable of preventing over travel of the gate.  Whilst NSW Emergency Services attended the site immediately following the collision, and took steps to secure the gate and perimeter fence, no additional steps were taken to repair, replace or make it safe.

On 5 June 2020 a member of the owners corporation contacted the strata manager to advise of the damage to the gate.  Between 5 and 12 June 2020 the gate was opened and closed manually by various workers at the site.

On the morning of 5 June 2020 a representative of the strata manager issued a work order to a contractor to repair the damage, but did not arrange for the gate to be repaired or replaced as a matter of urgency.  In contrast, damage to the water meter at the owners corporation was repaired on 5 June 2020 on an urgent basis.

Neither the owners corporation nor the strata manager arranged for a risk assessment to be conducted in relation to the damaged gate nor was the gate placed out of service following the damage nor was it removed and nor was a sign posted to the effect that the gate was not operational pending its full repair or replacement.  Neither the owners corporation nor the strata manager took any action to prevent the manual operation of the gate or to post signs advising the gate was not to be operated manually until it had been fully repaired or replaced.

The following day, a number of occupants within the strata scheme undertook makeshift repairs to the gate, without notifying the strata manager.  These repairs were ad hoc in nature and did not eliminate or otherwise address the risk of the gate falling or collapsing.

Approximately one week later an employee of one of the businesses operating from the strata scheme and attempted to operate the gate manually but in the circumstances including a lack of a physical stopper and the damaged guide posts the gate became unstable and fell onto that person.  The worker sustained fatal crush injuries as a result of the incident.  The business was also prosecuted by Safe Work NSW as a result of the injury and death suffered by one of its employees.

Criminal Case Against the Owners Corporation

The owners corporation accepted that it had failed in its duty to comply under the Work Health and Safety Legislation in that it did not:

  • either itself or require the strata manager to arrange an immediate risk assessment in relation to the safety and security issues;
  • take the gate out of service immediately and post signage to the effect that the gate was not to be operated manually until it was fully repaired or replaced;
  • implement itself or require the strata manager to implement measure to keep persons away from the damaged gate;
  • direct that the damaged gate not be touched or remain open or unlocked pending repair or replacement; and
  • develop and implement a safe work method statement for the manual operation of the gate.

The owners corporation was ordered to pay a fine of $225,000.00 as well as the prosecutor’s costs of $40,000.00.

Criminal Case Against the Strata Manager

The following failures were identified as a managerial breach of the strata manager’s breach of duty under the Work Health and Safety Legislation in that the strata manager’s duties included:

  • requiring a competent person to repair or replace the damaged gate following notification on 5 June 2020 of the damage to that gate;
  • arranging for the damaged gate to be immediately taken out of service and to prevent it being manually operated until repairs and replacement of the gate had been completed;
  • communicating to owners and occupants of the owners corporation by means such as signs and barricades that the damaged gate should not be operated unless and until the operation of the gate had been deemed to be safe by a competent person; and
  • confirming and follow up with relevant competent persons to require timeframes for repair and replacement once the strata manager had been notified by the owners corporation of the damage to the gate.

The strata manager was ordered to pay a fine of $150,000.00 as well as the prosecutor’s costs.

Criminal Case Against the Business

The following failures were identified as a breach of the business’ failure to comply with its duty under the Work Health and Safety Legislation:

  • failing to direct its workers not to manually operate the gate whilst it was damaged;
  • failing to direct that the damaged gate remain open unlocked prior to its replacement or repair by a competent person;
  • failing to implement and develop a safe system of work for operating and/or using the damaged gate during the period prior to its replacement or repair;
  • failing to develop a safe work method statement or safe work procedure for the manual operation of the gate;
  • failing to train and instruct its workers in a safe system of work and work method statement;
  • failing to raise safety concerns with the owners corporation and/or with the appointed strata manager about the daily routine of workers manually operating the damaged gate.

The business was fined $375,000.00 and was ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs in the amount of $44,000.00.

Some Relevant Observations for Owners Corporations and Strata Managers

Each of the parties prosecuted, the lot owners, the owners corporation and the strata manager were identified as having failed to have taken steps which each of them could have done to avoid the death.

Importantly, the Court identified that these steps could have been taken with little or no burden placed on the party concerned.  Examples of the steps which could have been taken included:

  • the lot owner directing its employees not to operate the gate manually;
  • the owners corporation directing that all occupants of the strata scheme do not operate the gate manually;
  • the owners corporation taking steps to make sure the gate was “out of action” until such time as it had been repaired;
  • the owners corporation directing owners and occupants of the strata scheme that they did not have permission or authority to repair common property;
  • the strata manager failing to implement a safe work plan in relation to the damaged gate, once they became aware that the gate had been damaged;
  • the strata manager failing to pursue the clearly required repairs and/or replacement of the gate with sufficient urgency;

Conclusion

Failures of common property are more than an annoyance.  The failure of an owners corporation and strata manager (and in some instances lot owners) to address failures of common property can lead to tragic outcomes.

It is critical that owners corporation take seriously their responsibilities pursuant to s106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 to repair and maintain common property, and these cases illustrate that it is insufficient for owners corporations and strata managers to operate on the assumption that repairs and maintenance can occur “in due course”.  In each instance, a proper analysis needs to be undertaken of the potential impact of each failure of common property and each instance where common property needs to be repaired.

If an owners corporation or strata manager is in any doubt in relation to these matters they should seek advice immediately.


Warwick van Ede Specialist Strata Lawyer and Accredited Property Lawyer

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.




Time Ticking on Government Funding for EV Charging

EV Charging – Grant Funding Deadline

Owners Corporations considering installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the strata scheme should be aware of the availability of grants from the NSW State Government to assist owners corporations with at least 10 apartments to install EV charging infrastructure in a common area.

The process takes place over two steps.

Step 1 – Feasibility Assessment

Owners corporations which believe they may be eligible can make application for a feasibility assessment.  The cost for an owners corporation making an application is $2,000.00 plus GST.  The New South Wales Government will cover any other part of the cost of the assessment process.

To be eligible, your strata scheme must:

  • be located in NSW;
  • be a registered strata scheme under the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015;
  • contain 10 or more apartments as a class 2 building;
  • have a private and/or common property visitor (or shared) off-street common property parking as part of the strata scheme;
  • have no more than 4 EV chargers already installed (for buildings with less than 40 apartments) or no more than 10% of the number of parking spaces for buildings over 40 apartments;
  • be able to implement EV charging infrastructure upgrades that can be accessed by all residents.

Step 2 – Grant Implementation

If the Step 1 feasibility assessment report is positive then the owners corporation will be invited to apply for Step 2 of the grants.

The owners corporation  will firstly need to meet for the purpose of passing some necessary motions and to empower the strata committee to obtain quotes for the Step 2 works.  Once those quotes are obtained then they are submitted together with some other documentation to the New South Wales Government for review, and once approved then the owners corporation can proceed to installation.

The government will fund 80% (up to $80,000.00 per building) of eligible infrastructure costs and will also cover 50% (up to $1,200.00 per building) of eligible software subscription costs for two years.

Act Now – Limited EV Government Funding

There is $10 million available to assist eligible NSW strata schemes, but it is on a “first come first served” basis.

It is therefore critical that if your owners corporation is considering undertaking works of this kind, that you begin to consider making application for  the funds which may be available to you as soon as possible.

If your strata scheme requires assistance in any aspect of the process, for example in drafting the necessary motions to take the matter forward, then we would be happy to assist you.

We also specialise in EV by-laws should you require a new EV by-law or a review of an existing EV by-law.


Warwick van Ede Strata Lawyer, Accredited Property Law Specialist, Litigator

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.




Parking Space Levies – The Question of Visitor Spaces

Are Visitor Parking Spaces Exempt from Levies?

A recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT has re-examined the question of as to whether visitor parking spaces in a residential strata complex qualify for exemption from levies which may be payable pursuant to the Parking Space Levy Act 2009 (NSW).

NSW Government Introduces the Parking Space Levy Act

An attempt to discourage or reduce traffic congestion in certain key Sydney business districts, in 2009  the NSW Government introduced the Parking Space Levy Act , the effect of which was to make a levy payable by landowners  on certain off-street parking spaces located in specified districts.

In broad terms, the districts to which the legislation currently applies are:

  • Sydney CBD;
  • North Sydney/Milsons Point;
  • Bondi Junction;
  • Chatswood;
  • Parramatta; and
  • St Leonards.

There are designated maps which set out in detail the parts of those areas to which the levy applies, and the levy has two categories. Category 1 (Sydney CBD and North Sydney/Milsons Point) has the highest levy rate, and  the balance of districts are designated as Category 2, for which a lower rate is payable.

The relevant legislation also contains exemptions, one of which is set out in Regulations 7 & 8 of the Parking Space Levy Regulation 2009 (the Regulation). One of the exempt purposes is where the parking spaces are for “the parking of motor vehicles by persons who reside on the premises or an adjoining premises”.

NCAT Disputes Visitor Car Space Assessment

The premises in question in this case were located in Milsons Point, and were therefore designated as “Category 1”. The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue made a determination that the strata scheme in Milsons Point was liable to pay a car space levy on 5 of 7 car spaces which were set aside for visitors to the property. The strata scheme itself is a mixed commercial and residential building containing 33 residential apartments and 7 commercial suites.

An application was made by the strata scheme to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) disputing the assessment made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue on the basis that the visitor car spaces in question should have been considered as “exempt” parking spaces.

Specifically, the strata scheme’s original application to NCAT argued that the exemptions described in Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations for “the parking of motor vehicles by persons who reside on the premises or an adjoining premises” should include parking spaces set aside for visitors of persons who reside on the premises.

The original decision of NCAT was that visitor car spaces were not exempt. The owners corporation then appealed the original NCAT decision in relation to this issue to the Appeal Panel.

The Decision of the Appeal Panel

The Appeal Panel rejected the proposition that parking for guests of residents was intended to be covered by the relevant exemption.

The Appeal Panel noted that Regulations 7 and 8 contained a number of specific exemptions including for parking of contractors and consultants providing services on the premises. The Appeal Panel argued that  if the Parliament had intended for an exemption to be granted for the parking of “guests”, then it could have included that exemption explicitly within those Regulations, which it did not.

The Appeal Panel noted that limiting the exemption in this way was also consistent with the aims of the legislation, being to discourage car use in the area. The Appeal Panel found that the parking spaces in question were for a combination of exempt and non-exempt purposes, and therefore not “exclusively” set aside for an exempt purpose.

The Appeal Panel therefore upheld the original decision of NCAT, and the original decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to apply the levy to these car spaces was affirmed.

The Conclusion

Although the Act and the Regulations apply only to a limited set of areas within Sydney, it is within the power of the Government to expand the list of areas to which that levy will apply in the future.  In light of current public policy settings regarding driving and motor vehicle use generally, the exercise of that power to expand the list of leviable areas in Sydney must be considered a possibility.

Owners Corporations within Category 1 and Category 2 areas should be aware of their obligations under the Act and the Regulations,  and the applicability of those legislative instruments to their particular circumstances.

Need Help with a Parking Issue?

We are happy to provide guidance to strata schemes who seek interpretation of the application of any Ruling in relation to levies of this kind or simply require general parking advice in relation to the issue.


Warwick van Ede Strata Lawyer, Accredited Property Law Specialist, Litigator

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.




Telco’s Still Flexing their Powers – Be Warned Strata!

Strata be Warned of Telecommunications Providers

Earlier this year we wrote about an increasing rise of telecommunications providers who are licensed under the relevant Commonwealth telecommunications legislation, using their powers to gain compulsory access (at no cost to them!) to owners corporation’s buildings.  In that article (Pushy Telco’s and Owners Corporations) we drew to the attention of owners corporations that such telecommunications providers use the processes set out in the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications Code of Practice and in particular, the use of a Notice to Inspect and a Notice to Install.  We pointed out in that article that if an owners corporation does not respond within very precise timeframes to these Notices, then the owners corporation loses its ability to object to the proposals set out in those Notices,  and they lose their ability to require the relevant telecommunications provider to consider any alternatives.

Ongoing Developments Since Our Original Article

Since the time of our original article, it has been clear that the activities of these telecommunications providers (which go by various names,  including GigaComm, and Servicestream) has continued, with more and more Notices to Inspect and Notices to Install coming to our attention.

Owners Corporations Act or Lose your Rights

Telecommunications service providers have written to us unhappy that they are being challenged,  and they have suggested that they are only utilising the rights which they have under the telecommunications legislation.  What they fail to comprehend is that landowners (such as owners corporations) also have rights to object to the proposals by telecommunications service providers, and certain rights  to require telecommunications service providers to properly justify these proposals.

To be clear, if an owners corporation wishes to question a proposal which they receive from a telecommunications service provider, then it is essential and critical that the owners corporation acts in a timely and immediate fashion to ensure that a properly draft Notice of Objection is served on the telecommunications service provider, or the owners corporation may be stuck with whatever proposal the telecommunications service provider wishes to proceed with.

Unsure What to do…

If your owners corporation requires assistance with a proposal from a telecommunications service provider, we are experienced in the processes under the telecommunications legislation including in drafting Notices of Objection in compliance with that legislation.


Warwick van Ede Specialist Strata Lawyer and Accredited Property Lawyer

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.




Pushy Telcos and Owners Corporations

Owners corporations are increasingly encountering aggressive behaviour by some telecommunications providers who say they are acting under powers granted to them pursuant to the Telecommunications Act.

Preserving the owners corporation’s rights and negotiating position can come down to whether the owners corporation responds in a timely fashion, and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Failure to do these things may mean the owners corporation is stuck with a proposal to install infrastructure and technology which the owners do not want.

It is important that you understand the steps which your owners corporation needs to take in dealing with such telecommunications providers.


The Rise of “Low Impact” Telecommunications Infrastructure

Once upon a time, the only occasion on which an owners corporation would hear from a telecommunications provider was if that telecommunications provider wished to install a mobile telephone tower on top of the building comprising the strata scheme.

In most instances this would lead to negotiations between the owners corporation and the relevant telecommunications provider as to the nature of the leasing arrangement which would be put in place to enable that mobile telephone tower to be erected and maintained and almost always the owners corporation would receive rental income as a result of allowing such installation to take place.

Under the Telecommunications Code of Practice 2021, telecommunications providers can give notices to an owners corporation in relation to their intention to use owners corporation’s property for various purposes.  Typically, these notices include:

  • The Inspection Notice – this notice provides the owners corporation with notice of the telecommunications provider’s intention to enter the strata scheme carry out an inspection of the building or buildings comprising the strata scheme to enable the telecommunications provider to consider whether it wishes to proceed with any further proposals; and/or
  • The Installation Notice – typically, a notice of this kind provides the owners corporation with written notice of the telecommunication provider’s intention to install certain “low impact” telecommunications infrastructure and systems – the notion of what is “low impact” is defined by the relevant legislation.

The Importance of Responding

The relevant legislation requires that an owners corporation receiving a notice from a telecommunications provider under the relevant legislation must respond:

  • in writing;
  • within a certain limited timeframe; and
  • in a specified manner,

otherwise the telecommunications provider may automatically have rights to do certain things pursuant to the relevant legislation.  For example, if the owners corporation fails to properly respond and/or fails to respond within the timeframes governed by the legislation, then the owners corporation may find itself without any basis to argue against a telecommunications provider installing certain equipment and infrastructure on the building, including certain forms of antennas, cabling etc.

“Pushing Back” Against Telecommunications Providers

Over the last 12 months we have seen a rise in the instances of such proposals, and specifically, of inspection notices or installation notices being given to owners corporations.

Normally the manner in which an owners corporation can respond is extremely limited, as is the time in which an owners corporation can respond.

Interestingly, when we have been engaged to object to those notices (in accordance with the relevant parts of the telecommunications legislation) then the telecommunications providers have, almost in every instance, withdrawn their notices and decided not to further engage with that particular owners corporation.

Therefore , even if the situation appears to have been “lost”, where  the owners corporation has failed to take any steps to deal with an inspection notice or installation notice, it is still worth engaging legal advisors to formally object to those notices, as it appears that telecommunications providers may not be willing to take on a “hostile” owners corporation, properly engaged.

Timing is Everything!

Should your owners corporation receive a notice from a telecommunications provider, then it is critical that you seek advice promptly, as some of the timeframes in which the owners corporation is entitled to respond are only 10 days in length.

Under the relevant legislation, any objection must deal with certain specified matters.


Need assistance with a proposal from a telecommunications service provider, we are experienced in the processes under the telecommunications legislation including drafting ‘Notices of Objection’ in compliance with that legislation. CLICK HERE!


Warwick van Ede Strata Lawyer, Accredited Property Law Specialist, Litigator

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.




Damages Claims Against Strata & Building Managers

Can a lot owner now make claims against building and strata managers for negligence?

A recent decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT has not ruled out the possibility that NCAT may be able to award damages to a lot owner for negligence by a strata manager and/or building manager of a strata scheme.

What did the Appeal Panel find, based upon previous decisions considering the Tribunal’s powers?

Here we share the case: Damages Claims Against Strata Managers and Building Managers – NCAT Opens the Door

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.




Bad Building Manager – NCAT Issues a Warning

NCAT Issues a Warning for Building Managers

 

A recent decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has broken new ground in making orders for the termination of a Building Manager Agreement.

In particular, the finding in this case was that the caretaker (building manager) had failed to perform the relevant agreement satisfactorily, and that the building manager agreement, in the circumstances of the case, was harsh, oppressive, unreasonable or unconscionable.

Owners Corporations and Unsatisfactory Building Managers

This decision of NCAT provides a comprehensive analysis of the operation of s72 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and provides a solid framework for an Owners Corporation to consider whether there are grounds to seek the assistance of NCAT to bring an unfair or unsatisfactory Caretaker (Building Manager) Agreement to an end.

Here we share the recent case and outcomes: NCAT Issues a Warning for Misbehaving Building Managers.

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.




Another “Nail in the Coffin” for Smoking in Strata

Smokers Unknowingly Breaching By-laws

A recent decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has recognised that even though a lot owner smokes inside their lot, they still may be in breach of the by-laws of the owners corporation and  leave themselves open to a penalty being imposed by NCAT.

Why? Because if the smoke leaves their apartment it will almost inevitably penetrate Common Property in one way or another.

A Recent Case…

This recent case illustrates that it is extraordinarily difficult for smokers to avoid breaching by-laws and why it’s important to have a well-drafted by-law if the owners corporation wishes to comprehensively deal with the issue.

Here we share the recent NCAT case article Smoking in Strata Apartments another “nail in the coffin”!

Also below, Warwick van Ede, Specialist Strata Lawyer talks with LookUpStrata on this very case and the many unanswered questions!


NCAT Smoking Common Property and Air Space Warwick van Ede Strata Lawyer

It’s definitely time to review your smoking by-law, or to implement one if you do not have one!


NEED A SMOKING BY-LAW OR TO REVIEW YOURS?

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.

Follow Us


Linkedin


Twitter


Envelope