In this case, water accumulated on the balcony walkway (which was part of common property) and then flowed into unit 13B which effectively destroyed the carpet in that unit. Section 24 of the UTMA (or more precisely section 51 of the old Unit Titles Act) was found to apply.

It was further found that the owners corporation failed to carry out its obligation under section 24 and as a result, damage flowed.

As part of the judgement determining whether damage was payable by the owners corporation, the court considered the issue as to whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable. The court held that the applicant’s apartment was regarded as sufficiently proximate to suffer damage and that the damage that flowed from the rain and subsequent water accumulation might reasonably have been anticipated.

Did the applicant mitigate their loss? The court found that the applicant had mitigated their loss by trying to dry the carpet.

On the question of quantum (being the amount claimable), given the court found that carpets generally have to be replaced every 10 years in any event and this carpet was about 8 years old, the amount recoverable by the applicant was two-tenths of the cost to replace the carpet.