News & Publications
Sarri v The Owners – Units Plan 1260 [2006] ACTSC 83
This ACT Supreme Court decision involved a lot owner who tripped and fell on the edge of a path which was located in an area for which the owners corporation was responsible. He wished to claim against the public liability insurance of the owners corporation to...
Dwyer & Anor v Civium Property Group Pty Ltd (Unit Titles) [2020] ACAT 9
This matter relates to a units plan development consisting of two townhouses. The owners of the two units brought this claim in their capacity as the owners corporation against the respondent, Civium Property Group Pty Ltd (Civium), who they incorrectly thought was...
Woolmer & Ors v The Owners – Units Plan No 346 (Unit Titles) [2019] ACAT 95
Units Plan No 346 consists of 16 Class B residential units and common property. The applicants are unit owners of three of the 16 units, collectively holding 17.88% of the total unit entitlement. At its reduced quorum annual general meeting on 14 January 2019 (the...
Bennett v Owners Units Plan 932 (Unit Titles) [2016] ACAT 57
The air conditioning system in the unit owned by the applicant was not operating. While the owners corporation acknowledged that it would usually be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the air-conditioning unit, in this instance the owners corporation...
Smith v Owners Corporation – Unit Plan 3115 (Unit Titles) [2021] ACAT 28
The applicant was an occupier of a unit and claimed he had a bike stolen from the common property area under the control and management of the respondent. The applicant claimed he locked his bike on the bike stand located on the common property because he was unable...
Nasser v The Owners – Units Plan No 3063 XD 794 of 2014 [Unreported ACAT decision – 17 September 2014]
The apartment building contained building defects. The applicant was the owner of a unit in that building (the Unit). As part of the process of identifying the defects, investigating the cause and engaging in a collaborative repair process with the original builder,...
Castro v The Owners – Unit Plan 246 (Civil Dispute) [2016] ACAT 111
The applicant was an owner of a class A unit who sought to recover the cost of repairing damaged electricity cables leading to his apartment caused by rodents and/ or other pests. The basis for this action against the owners corporation was that the electricity cables...
Lemmon v Body Corporate Units Plan 37 CS 20829 of 2002 – Small Claims Court of ACT Magistrates Court
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...
Case Note: The Owners – Units Plan No 2737 v Ryan & Anor (Unit Titles) [2016] ACAT 43
The respondents owned and occupied a ground floor unit and in 2006, were given written permission to plant two trees in their courtyard. In fact, three trees were planted. These trees flourished and soon began to interfere with the amenity of the unit directly above...
Case Note: Parker v The Owners – Units Plan No 36 (Unit Titles) [2014] ACAT 37
A unit owner sought, among other orders, an urgent order to stay the removal of a eucalyptus tree and required remedial measures be taken to retain the tree. The executive committee had authorised the removal of the tree (i.e. the facts are the reverse of those in the...
Case Note: May v The Owners – Units Plan No 116 (Unit Titles) [2014] ACAT 38
A unit owner sought, amongst other orders, an order from ACAT for the removal of a large Brittle Gum from the common property near his premises. When the matter first came before ACAT for directions, it was established that the question of removal of the tree was best...
Case Note: The Owners – Units Plan No 2849 v Conservator of Flora and Fauna (Administrative Review) [2016] ACAT 106
On 18 December 2015, the applicant applied to the respondent to damage three different trees by removing them. Tree assessment reports were prepared on 12 January 2016 and tree 1 (being the subject of this decision) was found to be in good health. On 22 January 2016,...