{"id":1880,"date":"2019-11-25T06:19:40","date_gmt":"2019-11-25T06:19:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/?p=1880"},"modified":"2019-11-25T06:21:18","modified_gmt":"2019-11-25T06:21:18","slug":"no-pets-no-more-recent-updates-on-keeping-pets-in-strata-schemes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/no-pets-no-more-recent-updates-on-keeping-pets-in-strata-schemes\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018No pets\u2019, no more? \u2013 recent updates on keeping pets in strata schemes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In the recent cases of Yardy v Owners Corporation SP 57237 [2018] NSWCATCD 19 (decided on 19 February 2018), McCormick &amp; McGinness v The Owners \u2013 Strata Plan No. 2371 (decided on 9 October 2018) and most recently a matter relating to The Elan building in Kings Cross (decided on 20 September 2019), the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that a no pets provision in the by-laws would be invalid on the basis of section 139(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (the Act).<br \/>\nSection 139(1) of the Act provides that a by-law must not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.<\/p>\n<p>In Yardy, the Tribunal held that the no pets by-law:<br \/>\n1. was harsh as it was a complete prohibition with no exceptions and made no provisions for special circumstances to be considered;<br \/>\n2. was unconscionable because it unreasonably and unnecessarily precludes the exercise of a right of habitation which is part of contemporary community standards and provides no opportunity for consideration to be given to the rights and needs of individual lot owners; and<br \/>\n3. was unreasonably excessive and oppressive as it does not involve or permit a balanced consideration of the interests and needs of all lot owners or occupiers. The by-law provided no process by which a lot owner could be able to keep an animal as a pet and operated only in the interests of those opposed to the keeping of animals as pets.<\/p>\n<p>A critical consideration in the Yardy proceedings was the evidence of the benefit of pet ownership to humans as a general rule, and how the recognition of this phenomenon has formed part of contemporary community standards. The Tribunal further stated that keeping a pet may also be a part of a lot owner\u2019s basic right of habitation.<\/p>\n<p>The consequences of these decisions are that:<br \/>\n1. a by-law containing an outright prohibition is likely to be held to be harsh, unconscionable and oppressive and may be invalidated by the Tribunal; and<br \/>\n2. contemporary community standards need to be considered.<\/p>\n<p>The effect of the above is that unless there is something special about a scheme that would justify a blanket no pets by-law then a by-law prohibiting the keeping of a pet is likely to be held invalid if challenged.<\/p>\n<p>An appeal has been apparently been lodged in respect of The Elan building decision and it remains to be seen whether the decision made at first instance will be upheld.<br \/>\nWe note that the decisions of McCormick &amp; McGinness and The Elan Building have not been published.<\/p>\n<p>Written By Jasmin Singh and Allison Benson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the recent cases of Yardy v Owners Corporation SP 57237 [2018] NSWCATCD 19 (decided on 19 February 2018), McCormick &amp; McGinness v The Owners \u2013 Strata Plan No. 2371 (decided on 9 October 2018) and most recently a matter relating to The Elan building in Kings Cross (decided on 20 September 2019), the NSW [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[177,67,34,1],"tags":[310,150,349],"class_list":["post-1880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-by-laws-nsw","category-news-and-publications","category-nsw","category-uncategorised","tag-by-law","tag-pets","tag-strata"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1880"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1880\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1881,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1880\/revisions\/1881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kerinbensonlawyers.com.au\/resources\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}