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…
The applicants were the owners of a unit in Units Plan 3488. One morning when the applicants were not present in the unit, a hose connected to the mains in the toilet cistern broke and water flowed out of the cistern into the apartment and into the common property in the hallway. There was consequent…
The respondent was the owner of unit 2 and the applicant the owners corporation. The total claimed was: (a) balance of levies owed ($602.93); (b) ACAT filing fee; (c) legal expenses for preparation of and attendance at the hearing and the mediation; and (d) witness expenses.
The respondent argued that the legal and administrative expenses were…
The applicant sought an order from ACAT that the owners corporation issue a rule infringement notice for various alleged breaches of House Rules and rules of the owners corporation.
In response, ACAT held that there is no general power in section 129 of the UTMA to order the executive committee or the owners corporation to exercise…
The owners corporation appealed a number of aspects of the original decision. The appeal was dealt with as a review under section 82(b) of the ACAT Act and the owners corporation needed to establish an error of fact or law in the original decision in order to succeed. The exercise of some of the powers…