Units Plan No 346 consists of 16 Class B residential units and common property. The applicants are unit owners of three of the 16 units, collectively holding 17.88% of the total unit entitlement. At its reduced quorum annual general meeting on 14 January 2019 (the AGM), the owners corporation elected two persons to its executive…
The apartment building contained building defects. The applicant was the owner of a unit in that building (the Unit). As part of the process of identifying the defects, investigating the cause and engaging in a collaborative repair process with the original builder, the owners corporation had arranged for several inspections of both common and lot…
Lemmon v Body Corporate Units Plan 37 CS 20829 of 2002 – Small Claims Court of ACT Magistrates Court
In this case, water accumulated on the balcony walkway (which was part of common property) and then flowed into unit 13B which effectively destroyed the carpet in that unit. Section 24 of the UTMA (or more precisely section 51 of the old Unit Titles Act) was found to apply.
It was further found that the owners…
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…