Bruce v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 98803

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bruce v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 98803 [2022] NSWCATCD 83
Hearing dates: 14 February 2022
Date of orders: 11 April 2022
Decision date: 11 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S Hanstein, General Member
Decision:

The Tribunal declares that the applicants may keep the French Bulldog Peach on their lot, on the condition that the applicants comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 42 of the reasons for this decision.

Catchwords:

LAND LAW — Strata title — Keeping of animals — Where approval refused — Whether refusal unreasonable — Whether by-law prohibits keeping of more than one animal — Whether keeping of animal interferes with other occupant’s use and enjoyment

Legislation Cited:

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Sustainability Infrastructure) Act 2021 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Cooper v The Owners ̶ Strata Plan No 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Bruce (First Applicant)
Alice Barclay (Second Applicant)
The Owners – Strata Plan No. 98803 (Respondent)
Representation: Hunter Strata Management (Respondent)
File Number(s): SC21/46146
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The applicants, being owners of a lot in the strata scheme, seek an order under s 157 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (“Act”) that they be permitted to keep a French Bulldog named Peach on their lot. They have previously received approval from the respondent (“Owners Corporation”) to keep on their lot their other French Bulldog, Zodiac, and a bird.

  2. Section 157 of the Act provides:

157 Order permitting keeping of animal

(1) The Tribunal may, on application by the owner or occupier (with the consent of the owner) of a lot in a strata scheme, make an order declaring that the applicant may keep an animal on the lot or common property.

(2) The Tribunal must not make the order unless it is satisfied that—

(a) the by-laws permit the keeping of an animal with the approval of the owners corporation and provide that the owners corporation cannot unreasonably withhold consent to the keeping of an animal, and

(b) the owners corporation has unreasonably withheld its approval to the keeping of the animal on the lot or common property.

  1. I am satisfied the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

Facts

  1. The relevant facts are not in dispute, and I am satisfied of the following matters.

  2. The by-law adopted by the Owners Corporation in respect of the keeping of pets is option B of by-law 5 of the Model By-laws contained in the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (“Regulation”), which provides relevantly:

Option B

(1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal on the lot or the common property with the written approval of the owners corporation.

(2) The owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal on a lot or the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bruce v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 98803 and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWCATCD 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bruce v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 98803 involved a dispute between the applicants, Mr. Bruce and his wife, and the owners of the strata plan in question. The primary issue at hand was whether the refusal by the owners to permit the Bruces to keep their French Bulldog, named Peach, on their property was unreasonable. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a particular by-law within the strata plan's regulations prohibited the keeping of more than one animal and whether the presence of Peach interfered with the use and enjoyment of the property by other occupants. The matter was heard and determined by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of the strata plan's by-laws concerning pet ownership and the implications of those by-laws for the applicants' rights as owners of their lot. The applicants argued that the by-law in question did not explicitly prohibit the keeping of more than one animal and that their pet did not interfere with the rights of other occupants. The owners, on the other hand, contended that the by-law implicitly restricted pet ownership to a single animal and that the presence of Peach constituted an interference with the amenity of the property.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the by-law did not clearly prohibit the keeping of more than one animal, and therefore, the applicants were not in breach of the strata plan's rules. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the presence of Peach did not interfere with the rights of other occupants to use and enjoy their properties. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of a reasonable interpretation of the strata plan's by-laws, taking into account the applicants' rights as owners and the potential impact of their pet on the community.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicants were permitted to keep their French Bulldog, Peach, on their lot, subject to compliance with certain conditions outlined in the decision. These conditions were designed to ensure that the keeping of Peach did not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the property by other occupants. The Tribunal's decision balanced the rights of the applicants as owners with the need to maintain a harmonious living environment for all strata lot owners.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal declares that the applicants may keep the French Bulldog Peach on their lot, on the condition that the applicants comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 42 of the reasons for this decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.