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 pursued in the first instance before the…
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, a delegate of the respondent refused the application on…
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 inserting a new part 6A into the Building Act (the Scheme). Please note that while…
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 calendar days after the meeting.
There was no dispute…
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 Pty Ltd and Ehrensperger Nominees Pty Ltd were the only…
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. All 128 units in Central Park were owned by Statehay…
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 was whether the circumstances were such as to justify the appointment…
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 respondents did not contest that they owed the levies, but argued that some…
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 ‘maintain’ was included in the wording of motion 5, while the…
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 2016, the Owners Corporation passed a resolution to replace…
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 effectively sought the re-appointment of the strata…
Units Plan No 202 contained both class A units and class B units. This case centred around a long-standing and important legislated distinction in the maintenance obligations of the owners of these units. Namely, that the owners of class A units are not responsible for the maintenance of the exterior of their units (such as…