Cooper v The Owners - Strata Plan No 58068

Link copied
Case Copied 55 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Cooper v The Owners – Strata Plan No 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250
Hearing dates: 23 September 2020
Decision date: 12 October 2020
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [75];
Fagan J at [83]
Decision:

(1)   Grant the applicants leave to appeal from the decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT given on 27 May 2020.

(2)   Direct that the applicants file, within 7 days of these orders, the draft notice of appeal contained in the white folder.

(3)   Subject to compliance with order (2), allow the appeal and set aside orders (1)-(6) made by the Appeal Panel.

(4)   Order that the respondent pay the applicants’ costs in this Court.

Catchwords:

LAND LAW – strata schemes – by-laws – scope of subject-matter – purposive limits to the power to make by-laws – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 136(1)

LAND LAW – strata schemes – by-laws – restrictions on by-laws – requirement that by-law not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive – whether by-law imposing blanket prohibition on keeping animals contravenes provision – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 139(1)

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – use of dictionaries – whether three words comprise a composite statutory criterion

WORDS AND PHRASES – “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 139(1)

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 80, 83

Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), ss 4, 7, 9

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), s 84

Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 181E

Retirement Villages Act 1999 (NSW), ss 54, 134

Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW), s 4

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 135, 136, 137, 137A, 139, 141, 142, 148, 150, 153, 157, 158, 246, 253; Pt 8

Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW), Sch 3

Cases Cited:

ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel (2014) 254 CLR 1; [2014] HCA 18

Ainsworth v Albrecht (2016) 261 CLR 167; [2016] HCA 40

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 93 ALJR 743; [2019] HCA 18

Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110; [1976] HCA 24

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410; [1995] HCA 24

Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47

Casuarina Rec Club Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan 77971 (2011) 80 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 159

Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil and Gas plc [2016] 3 All ER 641

Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; [1980] HCA 16

Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46

In the matter of Jimmy’s Recipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 632

Owners – Strata Plan No 58068 v/ats Cooper [2019] NSWCATCD 62

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (2015) 236 FCR 199; [2015] FCAFC 50

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41

Project…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooper v The Owners - Strata Plan No 58068 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
[2020] NSWCA 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Cooper, sought to appeal a decision of the Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) concerning a by-law of their strata scheme, Owners - Strata Plan No 58068. The dispute centred on the validity of a by-law that imposed a blanket prohibition on the keeping of animals within the strata scheme.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the by-law was invalid on two grounds. Firstly, it considered whether the by-law fell within the scope of subject-matter permitted by section 136(1) of the *Strata Schemes Management Act 2015* (NSW), which governs the power to make by-laws. Secondly, the Court examined whether the by-law contravened section 139(1) of the Act, which prohibits by-laws that are harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive.

In its reasoning, the Court adopted a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, considering the ordinary meaning of the words in their context. It found that the phrase "harsh, unconscionable or oppressive" should be interpreted as a composite criterion, requiring a high threshold to be met before a by-law would be deemed invalid on this ground. The Court concluded that the by-law, by imposing a blanket prohibition on animals without any consideration for individual circumstances or the nature of the animal, was indeed harsh, unconscionable, and oppressive, and therefore invalid under section 139(1). Furthermore, the Court determined that such a by-law did not fall within the intended scope of section 136(1).

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the applicants leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders made by the Appeal Panel. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant the applicants leave to appeal from the decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT given on 27 May 2020.

(2) Direct that the applicants file, within 7 days of these orders, the draft notice of appeal contained in the white folder.

(3) Subject to compliance with order (2), allow the appeal and set aside orders (1)-(6) made by the Appeal Panel.

(4) Order that the respondent pay the applicants’ costs in this Court.

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.