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…
The owners corporation sought orders requiring Mr Perkins, the owner of unit 35, to refurbish his bathroom to prevent water egress into unit 34 (the unit below unit 35).
ACAT Senior Member Robinson distinguished the facts of this case from The Owners – Units Plan No 1917 v Koundouris [2016] ACTSC 96 on the basis that…
This case involved an owners corporation suing a builder to recover losses and expenses arising from building defects.
In that case, it was observed that the bathrooms of various units were not common property and therefore the only way in which the installation of waterproofing in the bathrooms of these units could be the responsibility of…
On 29 November 2018, a new motion was put forward by the owners corporation which replicated the motion in issue in the 2018 case. This new motion, again, failed to be passed by an unopposed resolution. As a consequence, the owners corporation commenced another proceeding, seeking an order pursuant to section 129(1)(g) of the UTMA…
The respondent is the owners corporation for mixed-use premises of 10 commercial units and 69 residential units. The applicant is the owner of one of the commercial units. At the 2018 general meeting held on 13 June 2018, a resolution was passed by 13 votes in favour and 1 against, the relevant part of which…
The applicant is the owners corporation of Units Plan 3217. The first respondent, AJ Properties Pty Ltd, is the owner of unit 13. The second respondent, Xbox Projects Pty Ltd, is the owner of units 11, 12 and 14. There was a fire which damaged units 11, 12, 13 and 14. The premises were insured…
The respondents are owners of a unit and members of the applicant owners corporation. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for orders in relation to a range of unapproved alterations the respondents had made without the consent of the executive committee in contravention of Article 4(1) of the Articles of the Units Plan. At the…