News & Publications
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,...
New Dispute Resolution Scheme under the Building Act 2004
In response to a substantial increase in the number of formal complaints about building matters since 2010, the new Building and Construction Legislation Amendment Act 2020 introduced a new dispute resolution scheme in the ACT for residential building disputes by...
Spedding v The Owners – Units Plan 3941 (Unit Titles) [2022] ACAT 49
The issue in this case was whether reduced quorum decisions made at an annual general meeting held on 16 December 2021 took effect where the owners corporation gave notice of the reduced quorum decisions to unit owners on 4 January 2022, that is, more than seven...
What Is An Unreasonable Reason To Refuse To Make A By-Law?
The Appeal Panel in Kaye v The Owners – SP 4350 [2022] NSWCATAP 173 (Kaye) have provided a number of reasons why an owners corporation was reasonable in refusing to make a common property rights by-law. In that case, a lot owner requested that the Owners Corporation...
Can An Owners Corporation Add Its Legal Fees For Recovering Unpaid Contributions To The Defaulting Lot Owner’s Ledger?
Although only a local court assessor’s matter, the case of The Owners - Strata Plan No 52098 v Khalil [2014] NSWLC 2 stands for not putting legal costs onto a lot’s ledger until they have been either the subject of a costs order in the Tribunal or a court. Paragraph...
Henry Kazar v Italian & Continental Bakery Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] ACTSC 9 (8 February 2008)
It should be noted that the relevant legislation in place at the time of this judgement is identical to the current sections 136 – 140 of the UTMA except that ACAT has replaced the ACT Magistrates Court as the relevant governing body. Italian & Continental Bakery...
Gracie v The Owners – Units Plan No 3411 & Ors (Unit Titles) [2016] ACAT 3
In this case, the owners corporation comprised two stages which were developed by Statehay Pty Ltd. Stage 1, known as Lakeside, comprised 112 units and was completed in about 2009. Stage 2, known as Central Park, comprised 128 units and was completed in April 2014....
Filaria Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Units Plan 932 [2002] ACTSC 8 (1 March 2002)
In this case, court proceedings were commenced seeking an order pursuant to section 92(2) of the Unit Titles Act 1970 (ACT) that David Bowditch be appointed an administrator of the owners corporation. The facts were not in any significant dispute and the real issue...
Community Title Scheme No X v SV & HF (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 72
By way of two debt applications, the applicant community title corporation (the applicant) sought the recovery of unpaid levies and associated collection expenses owed by the respondent lot owners pursuant to section 37 of the Community Titles Act 2001 (CT Act). The...
Case Note: Brudenall & Anor v The Owners – Units Plan No 202 (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 96
The applicant appealed against the decision in Brudenall v The Owners Corporation of Units Plan No 202 (Unit Titles) [2018] ACAT 113, alleging 10 errors of fact and law. The Appeal Tribunal accepted that the Original Tribunal erred in fact by stating that the word...
Case Note: Brudenall v The Owners Corporation of Units Plan No 202 (Unit Titles) [2018] ACAT 113
This case followed Brudenall & Ors v Owners Corporation Units Plan No. 202 (Unit Titles) [2016] ACAT 101. By late 2016 the Owners Corporation was intent on undertaking roof repairs on all the class A and class B properties. At the general meeting of 15 November...
Case Note: Rampala v The Owners – Units Plan 1330 (Unit Titles) [2018] ACAT 35
The applicant was one of the two registered owners of unit 1 in a unit titled complex owned by the respondent corporation. The applicant sought a merits review under section 129(1)(f) of the UTMA of two resolutions (motions 2 and 7) passed at its 2017 AGM. Motion 7...