Brosolo and Council of Owners of 25 St Leonards Strata Plan 352

Brosolo was a lot owner in a strata scheme. They applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an order enforcing the strata company's obligation to maintain and repair common property. The respondent, the Council of Owners of 25 St Leonards Strata Plan 352, opposed the application. The dispute hinged on whether the strata company's maintenance obligation was affected by the reluctance or inability of other lot owners to approve the necessary works. The court had to determine if the strata company's duty to maintain and repair common property was impeded by the procedural requirements under the Strata Titles Act 1985 that necessitated the approval of lot owners for significant works.

The court considered whether the procedural requirements under the Act, which required the approval of lot owners for significant works, could effectively prevent the strata company from fulfilling its statutory duty to maintain and repair the common property. The court examined the balance between the rights of individual lot owners to participate in the decision-making process and the necessity for the strata company to carry out essential maintenance and repairs. The central issue was whether the strata company's obligations were frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of other lot owners to approve necessary works.

The court found that the strata company's duty to maintain and repair the common property was not nullified by the procedural requirements for lot owner approval. The court held that the Act required the strata company to exercise its powers and perform its duties, including maintenance and repair, in good faith and in the best interests of the lot owners. The court emphasised that while lot owners had a right to be consulted and to approve significant works, this did not absolve the strata company of its statutory obligations. The court concluded that the strata company must proceed with the necessary works to maintain and repair the common property, notwithstanding the procedural hurdles.

The court ordered the respondent to ensure the commencement and completion of specified maintenance and repair works by a specified date. The works included levelling concrete slabs, rectifying uneven surfaces, painting or providing safety strips, installing handrails or barriers, sealing bitumen driveway cracks and holes, installing handrails or balustrades on retaining walls, painting or boxing taps, altering balcony railings, repairing steel balustrades, waterproofing balconies and stairs, and repairing the roof, including any structural work and guttering. The order mandated that these works be carried out to ensure the safety, functionality, and aesthetic integrity of the common property.