FLYNNE PTY LTD and THE OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN NO 6267
[2014] WASAT 153
•13 NOVEMBER 2014
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION: FLYNNE PTY LTD and THE OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN NO 6267 [2014] WASAT 153
MEMBER: MS N OWEN-CONWAY (MEMBER)
HEARD: 5 MAY AND 3 JUNE 2014
DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2014
PUBLISHED : 13 NOVEMBER 2014
FILE NO/S: CC 136 of 2014
BETWEEN: FLYNNE PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
THE OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN NO 6267
Respondent
Catchwords:
Communal laundry Authorising occupant to install washing machine and/or dryer Management of common property Request for council meeting Annual general meeting Authority to execute strata management agreement Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 15, s 17
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 35, s 42(8), s 42B, s 81, s 83, s 83(1), s 84, s 81(4), s 81(11), s 99A, s 99A(1), Sch 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a), Sch 1 Bylaw 8, Bylaw 8(2), Bylaw 8(2)(b), Bylaw 11(6), Sch 2 Bylaw 1, Bylaw 2, Bylaw 2(a), Bylaw 7, Bylaw 14
Result:
Dismissed in part
Successful in part
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The applicant, Flynne Pty Ltd, made various complaints against the strata company's management of the common property including the management of occupants' items of personalty placed in a communal laundry. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's complaint concerning the approval granted to occupants to place items of personalty in the communal laundry. The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's complaints concerning the respondent's cost in repairing damage to the applicant's lot caused by water ingress from the common property; maintenance and repairs to the communal laundry; distribution of the cost of unmetered utilities from the communal laundry and management of the common property. The Tribunal also determined the applicant's complaint that the strata management agreement dated 17 February 2014 was invalid. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to consider granting permission or approval to any lot proprietor, tenant or occupant hanging washing or parking vehicles (including bicycles) on common property to otherwise enforce Sch 2 Bylaw 1 and 7 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr Thorburn
Respondent: No formal appearance
Solicitors:
Applicant: N/A
Respondent: N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Dimitroff and Owners of 43 Kinsella Street, Joondanna, Strata Plan 14493 [2012] WASAT 12
Fisher and The Owners of Esplanade Court Strata Plan 363 [2008] WASAT 301
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
The Tribunal's reasons comprise an edited version of the oral reasons delivered on 22 September 2014.
The application
On 12 February 2014, Mr Allan Thorburn lodged an application against Mr Colin Anderson and Mr Michael Upton in the Tribunal.
The application is stated as having been made under s 99A(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act). The applicant sought relief in terms of the following orders:
1)That the management committee, prior to 12 February 2014, be retained to consider the agenda items set out in the email from a member of the committee (Mr Allan Thorburn, Director, Flynne Pty Ltd t/f The Thorburn Superannuation Fund and permanent proxy for the super fund) to the President of the committee (Mr Colin Anderson) requesting a meeting of the committee as set out in the email (refer Annexure A).
2)That any decisions on the agenda items set out in Annexure A made at the annual general meeting (AGM) to be held at 6 pm on 12 February 2014 be considered noneffective until an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) is called to consider the items after the Tribunal's decision.
3)That the managing agent should advise the management committee in accordance with the provisions of the ST Act as referred to in Bylaw 8(2)(b).
There are eight stated grounds. These grounds set out the facts surrounding the applicant's request for a meeting of the Council of Owners of the respondent (Council) and the agenda for an AGM scheduled to be held on 12 February 2014. The documents annexed and marked A is a list of the exhibited documents.
Initial directions hearing
The applicant had, after much debate, indicated to the Tribunal at the initial directions hearing on 27 February 2014 that the issue, in his contention, went to the validity of the AGM scheduled for 12 January 2014 and the resolutions passed at that AGM. The applicant asserted that the invalidity of the AGM and all decisions and resolutions passed thereat was caused by the Council's failure to comply with Sch 1 Bylaw 8(2) of the ST Act, being a failure to convene a meeting of the Council when requested in writing by him as a member of the council to do so. It should be noted at this stage that the applicant's original application referred to the 'Committee' when at all material times he intended to refer to the Council.
5 May 2014 hearing
The application was listed for final hearing on 5 May 2014 upon the basis that the key issue was validity of the AGM and resolutions period. However, on 5 May 2014 the Tribunal was informed by Mr Anderson that he had sold his proprietary interest in his lot (Lot 27) and that he had resigned from the Council. Mr Anderson explained that the sale of his lot had not settled and so he remained the holder of the legal title of his lot. After some debate with the parties the true issue emerged. It became apparent that the applicant intended to proceed against the Owners of Strata Plan No 6267 rather than Mr Anderson or Mr Upton in their personal capacities as lot proprietors or Council members. Accordingly, on 5 May 2014 orders were made to correct the name of the respondent pursuant to the power conferred by s 81 of the ST Act.
Mr Thorburn's complaint was that he emailed the then Chair of the Council, Mr Anderson, and requested that a meeting of the Council be called to discuss and resolve the agenda items for the AGM. As that meeting was not convened, he claimed that he had been shut out of placing certain matters on the agenda for the AGM. Mr Thorburn had indicated that that invalidated the AGM and all the resolutions passed at that AGM.
The Tribunal concluded in favour of the respondent, as there was no provision in the ST Act or by-laws that invalidated the AGM, or the resolutions passed at the AGM, simply by the Council failing to call a Council meeting requested by one of the Council member's representatives. The Tribunal concluded that as a lot proprietor has the capacity to give notice in writing of the matters he, she or it required to be placed on the agenda in preparation for an AGM or EGM as provided by Sch 1 By-law 11(6) of the ST Act, the applicant had not been shut out of placing specific items on the agenda for the AGM. Strictly speaking, Mr Thorburn had not made that request within the time permitted by Sch 1 By-law 11(6) of the ST Act but he could have taken advantage of that provision had he wished to. There was no explanation why the applicant, through Mr Thorburn, failed to take advantage of Sch 1 By-law 11(6)of the ST Act in the time permitted, given that notice of the AGM had been issued in a timely fashion under the bylaws on 12 January 2014. Mr Thorburn did not write an email requesting a Council meeting until 10 February 2014 four days before the AGM.
The Tribunal considered that the applicant had not been shut out of the process of adding to the agenda items for the AGM. In any event, a failure to comply with Sch 1 By-Law 8(2)(b) did not invalidate the AGM or the resolutions passed thereat.
As stated, in the course of the debate the real issues emerged. None of these issues were concerned with s 99A(1) of the ST Act and there were formal orders at the conclusion of the proceedings to rectify the basis of the application pursuant to s 83 of the ST Act. Further, it emerged that the owner of Lot 9 is Flynne Pty Ltd which is the trustee for the Thorburn Superannuation Fund, and not Mr Thorburn in his personal capacity. The application should therefore have been made in the name of the lot proprietor rather than the director of the proprietor or the beneficiary of the superannuation fund. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the proceeding the name of the applicant was amended to reflect the applicant's correct name, which is Flynne Pty Ltd, represented by Mr Thorburn, again pursuant to s 81 of the ST Act.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 5 May 2014, directions were made and recorded with the consent of Mr Anderson who remained a legal lot proprietor at that stage and Chairman of the respondent, that the true issues in dispute between the applicant and the respondent were:
a)whether the respondent has failed to repair the cause of water ingress to Unit 9 (the applicant's lot);
b)whether the respondent has failed to remove obstructions to the common property at the front of Units 9, 10, 11 and 12 and/or failed to prevent the use of common property for lot proprietors' or occupants' personal use;
c)whether the respondent has failed to control and manage the common property in that it has failed to take action to remove personal property (washing machines and dryers) from the common property communal laundry;
d)whether the respondent has failed to control and manage the common property in that it has failed to prevent lot proprietors or their occupiers from unmetered usage of electricity and water from the common property communal laundry;
e)whether the respondent has failed to keep in good and serviceable repair and maintain, replace and renew the fitting and fixtures in the common property, communal laundry and, in particular, the taps, plumbing and electrical connections and devices; and
f)whether the respondent has properly executed a strata management agreement with Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd.
These issues comprised the true issues in dispute as articulated by Mr Thorburn for the applicant and consented to by Mr Anderson for the respondent.
Some, but not all of these issues, were also intended by Mr Thorburn, for the applicant, to be raised with the Council and placed on the agenda for the AGM.
The proceedings in the Tribunal
As stated, the proceedings were the subject of an initial directions hearing on 27 February 2014, and a hearing on 5 May 2014, at which further directions were made and the six issues identified. The proceedings were listed for final hearing on 3 June 2014. On 12 May 2014 the Tribunal issued four summonses to witnesses:
a)to the Principal of Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd to produce documents concerning a specific topic;
b)to Mr Ron Edwards to give evidence;
c)to the Principal of Pro-Active Strata Management to produce documents concerning a specific topic; and
e)to Mr James Donnelly the Principal of Pro-Active Strata Management to give evidence.
All summonses were issued at the request of the applicant and served on 13 May 2014 by the Tribunal's service officer.
Mr James Donnelly, informed the Tribunal by email that he was not available on 3 June 2014 as he was booked to be in Queensland on that day. He advised that he was on vacation thereafter and would not return to the State of Western Australia until 17 June 2014. Mr Donnelly had provided to the Tribunal:
a)a list of the respondent's Council members;
b)an agreement, being an exclusive appointment to act as agent/manager of the respondent for the period 1 March 2014 to 28 February 2015, executed by Mr Colin Anderson and a person known as 'Hill' on 17 February 2014, which included an annexure thereto signed by 'Hill' and Mr Anderson'; and
c)a copy of a deed of assignment and sale of strata management asset dated 7 March 2014 between Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd and Proactive Strata Management.
There was no application to adjourn the final hearing and documents produced from Mr Donnelly were tendered by consent at the final hearing on 3 June 2014 (Exhibit 11). It should be noted that the list of Council members is incorrect as established by the evidence before the Tribunal. Mr Donnelly's evidence on any issues would not have been relevant as his business became the strata manager for the respondent after 7 March 2014 that is, after the relevant date.
The hearing 3 June 2014
The applicant attended the hearing and gave evidence, as did Mr Colin Anderson, the former chairman of the respondent, Mr Rob Edwards (Principal, Ron Edwards & Associates) and Mr Ron Edwards (the former Principal who at the time had management of this particular matter on behalf of that company). There was no formal appearance for the respondent. The former and new strata managers were aware of the hearing, as was Mr Anderson, who had been the Chairman of the respondent at the hearing on 5 May 2014.
The evidence and findings of fact
It is convenient in this proceeding to consider the evidence and make findings of fact in the order of the following issues.
• Whether the respondent had properly executed the strata management agreement with Ron Edwards & Associates (issue (f))
By way of background, the applicant was very dissatisfied with the manner in which the Council had conducted the business of the respondent. Mr Thorburn, as the applicant's representative, also considered for some time that the strata manager, Mr Ron Edwards of Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd, was unsatisfactory. The applicant had and has very definite views on how the respondent's business should be conducted, and challenged the Council and the strata manager on the manner in which the duties of the respondent had been performed in the past.
The applicant contended that Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd had not been validly appointed as the strata manager and that the purported assignment of the strata management agreement with the respondent had not been effective because the original strata management agreement between the respondent and Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd had not been validly executed. This is the reason why the central issue was identified as being whether the strata management agreement between Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd and the respondent had been properly executed.
The strata management agreement was executed on 17 February 2014 by Mr Anderson and a Council member known as 'Hill' (agreement) for the respondent. This document is included as part of Exhibit 6, which is a bundle of documents produced by Mr Rob Edwards. Various copies of that document also appear in other exhibits, one of which is the applicant's original copy provided to the Tribunal and referred to as Exhibit 3, with Mr Thorburn's handwritten annotations and rhetorical questions written over the document.
At the hearing on 5 May 2014, Mr Anderson was unclear why he signed the agreement. He indicated that he was asked by someone at the 'strata manager's office' to sign it and he did. He was not sure of who 'Hill' was or whether 'Hill' was a Council member or not. He did not have a clear recall of even signing the agreement.
However, at the hearing on 3 June 2014, Mr Anderson gave evidence, after being affirmed, that he did recall signing the agreement. He said that he also recalled that Ms Hill, who was appointed to the Council at the AGM on 12 February 2014, signed the agreement. He explained that when he was asked about the agreement 'on the spur of the moment' when Mr Thorburn asked him on 5 May 2014, his mind went 'blank'. The Tribunal accepts Mr Anderson's evidence. Mr Anderson was an honest witness who clearly was confused by the process that he found himself involved in before the Tribunal and was unable to comprehensively respond to the various challenges that Mr Thorburn, on behalf of the applicant, made against his authority and that of the Council and the strata manager.
Mr Rob Edwards gave evidence that the minutes of the AGM held on 12 February 2014 (part of Exhibit 2) were inaccurate. He produced an amended version (part of Exhibit 6). In particular, the amended version notes that 'K Hill' attended the AGM for Unit 12 and that 'K Hill' was appointed to the Council and 'L Bellisimo' was not appointed to the Council members' list. The strata roll filed on behalf of the respondent by Mr James Donnelly of Pro-active Strata Management pursuant to the Tribunal's direction made on 5 May 2014 shows 'K Hill' as a co-owner of Unit 12. Ms K Hill was not called to give evidence. The applicant was in attendance at the AGM on 12 February 2014 and must have known, or should have known, that Ms K Hill had been properly appointed as a Council member, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps the minutes were inaccurate. Ms K Hill being a member of the Council and Ms L Belissimo not being a member of the Council following the AGM on 12 February 2014, is not consistent with the email from Mr Donnelly (and the list of individuals on the Council). Mr Rob Edwards gave evidence that the error was derived from the erroneous minutes which failed to record these facts.
The applicant gave evidence in the nature of a list of complaints about the Council and Mr Ron Edwards in relation to this issue, including:
•that errors had been made in the minutes as evidenced by Mr Rob Edwards' evidence and the amendments to the minutes of the AGM (Exhibit 6); and
•that too much time had elapsed before the error had been identified and corrected by Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd.
The Tribunal put to the applicant fairly and squarely in evidence whether the amended minutes (Exhibit 6) and the inclusion of Ms K Hill as a Council member was false. He categorically answered that the amended minutes were not false and he did not contend the amended minutes to be false.
Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence on oath. He stated that Ms K Hill nominated for the Council from the floor at the AGM. There was no vote on members for the Council because, although eight people had originally nominated, one nominee withdrew, which left only seven people nominated. No vote was required, therefore, as all vacant positions were filled by the people who had nominated.
The original (erroneous) minutes (Exhibit 2 and part of Exhibit 11) and the amended minutes (Exhibit 6) record that Mr Thorburn was present and nominated as a Council member at the AGM. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Thorburn was present at the AGM; had nominated for a position on the Council and when asked directly by the Tribunal did not dispute that Ms K Hill had a valid position on the Council, he raised the issue before the Tribunal that the 'Hill' who had executed the agreement was not authorised to sign as a Council member. The applicant's copy of the agreement (Exhibit 3) queried who 'Hill' was, and his reliance on Mr Anderson's forgetfulness suggested that Ms K Hill was not a valid Council appointee. For example, the applicant's director, Mr Thorburn, highlighted and relied upon an email statement by Mr Anderson that he had 'never seen any written agreement' and Mr Thornburn's annotation of the applicant's copy of the agreement that K Hill is not on the list of committee members'. In fact and in truth, the applicant, through Mr Thorburn, knew or should have known that Ms K Hill was a valid appointment to the Council. Mr Thorburn used this proceeding on this issue to demonstrate and substantiate his alleged criticisms of the manner in which the respondent's business had been performed.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Ron Edwards that Ms K Hill of Unit 12 nominated for a position on the Council from the floor at the AGM on 12 February 2014. The Tribunal accepts the unchallenged evidence of Mr Ron Edwards and Mr Rob Edwards that Ms K Hill was a validly appointed Council member. The Tribunal further finds that Mr Anderson and Ms K Hill, as Council members, did execute the agreement to appoint Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd as the strata manager for the respondent on 17 February 2014.
The issue of the authority to enter into that agreement then arose.
Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that he sought approval at the AGM for a fresh strata management agreement for the forthcoming year, which agreement was usually executed after the AGM at a time that was convenient for the parties to attend his office to sign the document. Mr Ron Edwards referred to the strata management agreement that was executed in August 2013 that related to the year before in the period 28 February 2013 to 28 February 2014 as an example (Exhibit 8). Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that he sought the approval of the respondent in general meeting at the AGM on 12 February 2014 for the next year, and that motion was put and passed or carried by the AGM. The minutes of the AGM (Exhibit 2) and the amended minutes of the AGM (Exhibit 6) at Item 9.1 record that the motion that 'Ron Edwards & Associates' be 'approved for the next 12 months' (meaning approval to continue as strata manager) was carried by the AGM.
This resolution must have been known to Mr Thorburn as he was present, it was recorded in the minutes and there was no amendment to that aspect of the minutes of the AGM (see Exhibit 6). Notwithstanding his knowledge of the resolution, the applicant brought these proceedings contending that the agreement was not valid and was never subject to the respondent's true agreement. The applicant's contention had always been that the agreement was not valid and was indeed a sham. Such an allegation could never have reasonably been made, given that Mr Ron Edwards' proven practice was to seek reappointment each year at the AGM, and given that he did so on 12 February 2014 in Mr Thorburn's presence on behalf of the applicant; that is, Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd did not seek reappointment merely from the Council but sought it each year from the members all of the members at a general meeting of the respondent.
Mr Rob Edwards gave evidence that his father, Mr Ron Edwards, had agreed for the company to act as the respondent's strata manager for a further 12 months at the AGM on 12 February 2014 as recorded, and that there were discussions between Mr Ron Edwards and Rob Edwards and Mr Anderson to assign the agreement to another strata management business after the AGM on 12 February 2014. The reason for the assignment was not fully ventilated before the Tribunal, but Mr Ron Edwards indicated that the disharmony on the Council had contributed to his decision. Mr Rob Edwards indicated that the demands of the applicant, through Mr Thorburn, were making continuation as strata manager both unprofitable for Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd and time consuming for all concerned. There is an indication of this motivation in Exhibit 6, being an email between Mr Rob Edwards and Mr Donnelly on 24 February 2014.
The Tribunal finds, based upon the amended minutes, that the evidence of Mr Ron Edwards, the evidence of Mr Anderson, and the evidence of Mr Rob Edwards, the respondent in general meeting on 12 February 2014 agreed to appoint Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd as the respondent's strata manager for a further 12 months from about 28 February 2014 (being the date of expiration of the earlier strata management agreement executed in August 2013) to 2015.
The Tribunal further finds that Mr Thorburn on behalf of the applicant, knew, or should have known from the minutes of the AGM and from attending the AGM, that the motion put that Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd be approved for the next 12 months was carried by the respondent in general meeting, and there was no foundation for the applicant's assertion and contention that the agreement dated 17 February 2014 was not authorised by the respondent. Accordingly, the applicant's application on this issue is dismissed.
• Whether the respondent had failed to repair the cause of the water ingress to Unit 9, the applicant's lot (issue (a))
Little information was provided to the Tribunal about the water ingress to the applicant's lot (unit 9) or the cause. Even less information was provided as to how long the water ingression to the applicant's lot had been known and the extent of the problem. Neither party could explain the problem, but it appeared to the Tribunal from the information that was provided that a common property pathway adjacent to the applicant's lot was higher than the bottom course of the external wall of the applicant's lot, resulting in water running from the common property path to the wall and entering the applicant's lot.
The Tribunal did not have any technical evidence from a builder or a tradesman that would assist the Tribunal in understanding how the water would have penetrated through an external wall, through the cavity and into and out from an internal wall of the applicant's lot. Mr Ron Edwards stated, and it is recorded in the minutes of the AGM and the amended minutes of the AGM, that three quotes had been obtained and were to be discussed at the AGM on 12 February 2014.
The minutes and amended minutes of that AGM record that it was resolved that that item of business would not progress further because of the applicant's application to the Tribunal and a belief that the matter was properly before the Tribunal. The reason that there was that belief was that this issue formed part of the applicant's application. This aspect of the application, in the Tribunal's view, is entirely misconceived.
As stated, the original application focused on the procedural issue of whether the Council should have called a meeting following Mr Thorburn's email of 10 February 2014 requesting a meeting for the consideration of an agenda for the AGM on 12 February 2014. Mr Thorburn's email requesting a meeting of the Council referred to there being a second quote for work outside the applicant's lot to be discussed.
As stated above, the option was available for the applicant, through Mr Thorburn, to write to the respondent and ask for that matter to be placed specifically on the agenda for the AGM on 12 February 2014. In any event, how it came to be on the AGM agenda was inconsequential, because it was discussed or was on the agenda to be discussed at the AGM. The matter was discussed or was ready for discussion at the AGM, and not two but three quotes were produced at the AGM.
However, the applicant, in bringing these proceedings and seeking the order in the original application, prevented the matter being discussed further in the eyes of all of the members who attended that AGM. Quite to the contrary of the suggestion by Mr Thorburn at the hearing on 5 May 2014 that the respondent had not progressed this issue, the only evidence before the Tribunal is that the respondent was at the stage of obtaining three quotes to attend to the repairs of the water ingress. The nature, details and cost of the repairs required (none of which was the subject of any evidence by any party before the Tribunal) was a matter that the respondent (through the Council) considered should be put before the members at the AGM. There are often cost reasons for this approach. Often, the cost to approve a repair may be beyond the Council's authority. No evidence was led as to why this issue was considered appropriate as an item of business before the AGM in this proceeding but, nonetheless, it was properly before the members in general meeting.
Had the applicant not proceeded with this aspect of its application, a resolution might have been reached on the extent, nature and cost of the repairs required at that AGM. To the extent that the applicant asserts that the respondent has failed in its duty to maintain the common property and prevent damage to the applicant's lot from the common property, the Tribunal dismisses that application on the evidence.
There is no evidence that the respondent failed to maintain the common property or repair damage to the applicant's lot. The only evidence put to the Tribunal was that it was in the process of rectifying any ingress of water to the applicant's lot. The respondent may not have been proceeding as quickly as the applicant would have liked, but the Tribunal cannot find, on the evidence before it that the respondent failed to discharge its duty to manage, maintain and keep in good repair the common property in breach of s 35 of the ST Act. Accordingly, the application on this issue is also dismissed.
• Whether the respondent has failed to remove obstructions to the common property at the front of Units 9, 10, 11 and 12 and/or failed to prevent the use of common property for lot proprietors' or occupants' personal use (issue (b))
The lots in issue are the lots at the front of the strata development and facing the road. Mr Thorburn gave evidence that occupants were permitted to pile up items and rubbish on balconies, hang washing on balconies, store rubbish on common property and park on the verge in breach of the bylaws.
Mr Thorburn, on behalf of the applicant, produced photographs of several units to evidence these facts (Exhibit 10). The upper storey units have balconies but the balconies comprise common property. There is no lawful access to those common property balconies save through the individual lots on the upper floor.
The lower units have smaller verandas which are also common property. A number have air conditioners positioned on the common property verandas and balconies, along with storage of some fans, pot plants, shoe racks, shoe boxes and children's bicycles, and a large bicycle was evidenced(and balcony) in Exhibit 10. Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that the units are very 'tight'. They are quite small. Mr Anderson admitted that, as the caretaker to whom the task of the daytoday maintenance had been delegated by the respondent, he had permitted on occasions for this conduct to occur. He said that some occupants had become irate and difficult when he had asked them to remove rubbish and items that were unsightly. Some occupants who had children have been permitted by him specifically to leave the children's bicycles on the veranda.
Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that Mr Anderson had been delegated the task of cleaning up around the strata from time to time, putting rubbish from the common property into bins, reading the meters and the like. Mr Ron Edwards said that after a number of attempts, the front units had been tidied up, and all that was left were some boxes for shoes which the Tribunal understands to be either boxes for shoes or shoe racks and a child's bicycle was left on one veranda.
Clearly, air conditioners remained in situ on the common property, but there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the respondent had or had not considered the positioning of items on the common property such as air conditioners. That matter will not be the subject of these proceedings because it has not been a matter that has been complained of by the applicant.
The applicant's application, as Mr Thorburn explained, was directed more towards neatness and the removal of items that were detracting from the appearance of the lots, particularly at the street frontage, rather than the fact that the items were positioned on common property. Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that all of the issues of unsightliness, rubbish and untidiness had been resolved as at the hearing on 3 June 2014. The individual who had been permitted by Mr Anderson to park on the common property had removed his vehicle and had been re-educated as to his entitlement or lack thereof to park on the verge without written permission from the strata company. It is noted that the respondent is obliged by s 35 of the ST Act to enforce bylaws, control and manage the common property for the benefit of all proprietors, and to keep it in good and serviceable repair, properly maintain and, when necessary, renew and replace common property items, including fixtures, fittings and the like used in connection with the common property and any personal property vested in the strata company.
The applicant's complaints raise a number of issues. The first issue is whether an occupier is entitled to park on the common property. It is implicit in this matter that the standard bylaws referred to in Sch 1 and Sch 2 of the ST Act comprise the bylaws of this development. Parking on the common property without the written permission of the strata company is prohibited by the Sch 2 bylaws of the ST Act. There is no evidence before the Tribunal whether the respondent considered this issue; that is, whether the respondent properly constituted either by the Council or the members in general meeting at an AGM or EGM considered the issue. It is common for strata companies to resolve to set aside and make an area of the common property for the parking of vehicles. This is not the case where a bylaw granting an exclusive licence or any special privilege was passed at a meeting of the respondent. Such a bylaw can only be passed by resolution at a general meeting without dissent (s 42(8) of the ST Act: Fisher and The Owners of Esplanade Court Strata Plan 363 [2008] WASAT 301 (Fisher); Dimitroff and Owners of 43 Kinsella Street, Joondanna, Strata Plan 14493 [2012] WASAT 12 (Dimitroff).
In this case, it is a question of the exercise of the power to give written permission for vehicles to be parked or positioned on common property as provided by Sch 2, Bylaw 1 of the ST Act, which provides:
Vehicles
A proprietor, occupier, or other resident of a lot shall not park or stand any motor or other vehicle upon common property except with the written approval of the strata company.
If the parking does not breach the bylaws then there is no reason why the respondent, through the Council, cannot grant that permission pursuant to Sch 2 Bylaw 1 of the ST Act. The other relevant Bylaws are Sch 1, Bylaw 1(2)(a) and Sch 2, Bylaw 2.
Schedule 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a) of the ST Act relevantly provides:
1. Duties of proprietor, occupiers etc.
…
(2)A proprietor, occupier or other resident of a lot shall
(a)use and enjoy the common property in such a manner as not unreasonably to interfere with the use and enjoyment thereof by other proprietors, occupiers or residents, or of their visitors[.]
Schedule 2 Bylaw 2 of the ST Act provides:
2. Obstruction of common property
A proprietor, occupier, or other resident of a lot shall not obstruct lawful use of common property by any person.
In this case, there is the question of the parking of a vehicle in the form of a bicycle, on an upper storey balcony (unit 14 depicted in Exhibit 9). The only lawful means by which, that common property balcony, may be accessed is through the individual lot adjacent to the balcony. Unless a person has a lawful entitlement to walk through that lot, that balcony cannot be accessed. Parking a bicycle on that common property does not interfere with any lawful use of that common property by any other person. Therefore it does not offend Sch 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a) or Sch 2 Bylaw 2. If permission is granted by Council the parking of vehicles on common property does not offend Sch 2 Bylaw 1.
The second issue concerns the storage of household items such as pot plants, fans and the like. In the Tribunal's view, there appears to be no breach of the bylaws. This is so where those items have been stored on the balcony of the upper units. Again, no lawful use can be made of those balconies by any other lot proprietor unless they have lawful permission to access the balconies through the individual lots. In the Tribunal's view, the positioning of fans, pot plants, chairs on the balconies or on the verandas does not breach Sch 2 Bylaw 2 or Sch 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a) as long as they do not detract from the strata development and do not breach Sch 2 Bylaw 14, which has not been raised.
The question arises whether parking of the bicycle on the balcony is in a special position, if it is a vehicle. If it is a vehicle, then the Tribunal's view is that Sch 2 Bylaw 1 must be complied with, and that the proprietor or the occupant must be given written permission to position the bicycle on the balcony of an upper storey unit. There is no evidence that the bicycle that is seen in one of the units has been given that permission by the Council.
It is not for the Chairman of the Council of the respondent or the caretaker to grant permission on an ad hoc basis. On the evidence that there is a failure on the part of the respondent through the Council to consider whether permission should be granted for the positioning of a vehicle on the common property, including a bicycle on an upper storey balcony, the Tribunal considers that the respondent has failed in its duty to enforce the bylaws and to maintain the common property for the benefit of all of the parties.
The Tribunal shall order that the respondent is directed to consider in the case of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 only, they being the lots complained of by the applicant, whether any proprietor or occupant should be given written permission or approval to position a vehicle, including a bicycle, on the common property (including the balcony), and if not, to enforce Sch 2 Bylaw 1.
As to the positioning of pot plants, fans, shoes, boxes, shoe boxes or shoe racks, the Tribunal considers that on the evidence, there is no breach of any bylaws by the positioning of such items in a tidy and orderly fashion on the common property. Merely allowing that to occur does not confer any exclusivity or special privilege on the proprietor or the occupant of that lot. In the Tribunal's view, that does not offend Sch 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a) or Sch 2 Bylaw 2 in any way.
The Tribunal does not consider that simply permitting people to place items on the common property adjacent to their lot breaches Sch 1, Bylaw 1(2)(a), nor does it breach any of the bylaws in Sch 2. Further, the Tribunal does not consider that it confers any exclusivity or any special privilege. This is not a case where there was a resolution passed to permit certain lot proprietors to use the common property in a particular way, as was the position in Fisher and Dimitroff. In those cases the resolutions were considered by the Tribunal to be resolutions that should have been passed at an AGM or EGM without dissent. The uses of the common property in this proceeding are not the same as in Fisher and Dimitroff and are entirely in keeping with Sch 1 Bylaw 1(2)(a) in particular.
In relation to another lot, the complaint is that a clothes horse is positioned on the balcony and is used to hang washing. This use, on the face of it, is a breach of Sch 2 Bylaw 7 which prohibits a proprietor or occupier:
… except with the consent in writing of the strata company
(a)[to] hang any washing, towel, bedding, clothing or other article on any part of the parcel in such a way as to be visible from outside the building, other than for a reasonable period on any lines provided by the strata company for the purpose[.]
Mr Thorburn, on behalf of the applicant, advanced the argument that as there were three washing line drying areas they were the only areas where implicit permission had been granted by the respondent for the hanging of any washing, et cetera. There was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether this had been considered by the respondent in relation to any particular lots. If it had been considered, the Tribunal infers that the documents would have been provided to evidence the written approval or consent having been granted to the lot proprietor or the occupant concerned. As there was no such documentation produced, the Tribunal infers that no such written consent, permission or approval was granted to the occupier of the lot in question to position a clothes horse and washing on the balcony of that unit. The Tribunal notes from the photographs that the lot concerned is not identified, but it appears to be one of the units at the front of the development facing the road.
Accordingly, the Tribunal shall order that the respondent, through the Council, shall consider whether to grant the occupier of any lot written permission to position a clothes horse and washing on the balcony, and if that permission is not granted, the respondent shall enforce Sch 2 Bylaw 7.
• Whether the respondent has failed to control and manage the common property in that it has failed to take action to remove personal property from the common property communal laundry (issue (c))
The strata has a very large laundry structure. It is common property. There are 28 lots in the parcel. A number of coin-operated washing machines have been installed by the respondent over a period of 39 years. Currently, there are two such coin-operated machines. This service is provided by an unidentified individual who, according to Mr Ron Edwards, usually reimburses the respondent approximately $300 each year, although he has failed to reimburse the respondent over the past two years. A number of occupiers have, with tacit approval of the respondent, installed their own washing machines and/or dryers, as evidenced by the photographs taken by Mr Thorburn (Exhibit 9). The photographs show six washing machines. The purpose of the building is to be used as a laundry for everybody on the parcel; that is, for the benefit of all of the proprietors, their occupants or tenants.
The positioning of movable items of personalty in the laundry for the purpose of assisting with washing and drying of laundry is not, in the Tribunal's view, an unlawful use of the laundry. Therefore it does not offend against Sch 2, Bylaw 2, nor does it offend against Sch 1, Bylaw 1(2)(a).
All lot proprietors or their tenants and occupants are permitted to place movable items of personalty for washing and/or drying of clothes in the laundry, according to Mr Anderson. There has never been any suggestion by any party who gave evidence in these proceedings that only certain people are permitted to put their washing machines and/or dryers in the communal laundry. Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that the laundry room is 'huge' and can accommodate many more washing machines and dryers. By contrast, he said the individual lots are very 'tight' and very few, if any, could accommodate a washing machine 'they are too small'.
The permission granted to all lot proprietors or occupants to position such equipment in the laundry room does not obstruct any lot proprietor's lawful use of the common property, in the Tribunal's view. In fact, it is consistent with the intended use of the common property laundry; that is, the laundry is being used for the purpose for which it was created. Such permission does not create any exclusivity of use or special privileges on any proprietor or their occupants or tenants. No exclusive use bylaw has been created such that resolution without dissent is required, as in the case of Dimitroff, nor has it been intended.
This case differs from Fisherand Dimitroff in that all lot proprietors, their occupants and tenants have been treated equally, and all have the same entitlement to place a washing machine and/or dryer in the communal laundry room. The Tribunal concludes that the respondent has not breached its s 35 of the ST Act duty, but rather is performing its s 35 of the ST Act duty. This aspect of the application shall be dismissed.
• Whether the respondent has failed to control and manage the common property, in that it has failed to prevent lot proprietors and occupiers from using unmetered amounts of electricity and water from the common property communal laundry (issue (d))
This is the crux of the applicant's complaint, and it is this item that gives a hint as to why the application was originally made pursuant to s 99A of the ST Act. Section 99A of the ST Act is concerned with the Tribunal's power to relieve a party against having to pay a levy issued upon a bylaw passed pursuant to s 42B of the ST Act. In this parcel, all of the respondent's expenses are levied based upon lot entitlements; that is, everybody pays all of the outgoings of the strata company based upon their lot entitlements as registered on the title.
It was established by the evidence of Mr Rob Edwards and Mr Ron Edwards that water to each lot is metered by way of a submeter which has been installed, but gas to heat the water to each lot is not metered. Gas to each unit is unmetered. Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that the cost of metering the gas to each lot, or to meter the gas to heat the water to each lot, would be excessive. Every lot, he said, would be required to have its own hot water system, and all the piping from the gas mains would need to be upgraded, replaced and renewed with greater diameter piping as the parcel is very old, having been built in approximately 1978.
The gas cost, therefore, is not metered, and the gas cost is divided in accordance with lot entitlements, as required by the ST Act. The water to the communal laundry taps is not separately metered and neither is the gas engaged to heat that water. The electricity to the laundry is not metered. This means that those people (proprietors, occupants and tenants) who have a washing machine and/or dryer positioned in the communal laundry are using the utilities more than others who do not have a washing machine and/or dryer in the communal laundry; however, the cost of those utilities cannot be distributed to the lot proprietors who use, or whose tenants or occupants use, the utilities by use of washing machines and/or dryers in the communal laundry.
Most of the occupants in this parcel are tenants and not lot proprietors. The lot proprietors bear the cost of everyone's gas use in accordance with their lot entitlements, and all of the water and electricity to the communal laundry is divided in accordance with lot entitlements. There is a disjunct, according to Mr Thorburn (which is not disputed by Mr Ron Edwards), between the amount some proprietors, tenants or occupants use and what all lot proprietors have to pay.
The lot proprietors cannot pass on to the tenants the cost of the gas and utilities consumed in the communal laundry under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) where it is unmetered, and therein lies the problem for the applicant. Whether the lot proprietors can pass on any cost to their tenants or occupiers is not a fact relevant to this Tribunal, in this matter. It is a not a matter that arises between occupants. It is not a matter that arises between lot proprietors. It is a matter that arises between landlord and tenant, and jurisdiction to determine such matters is conferred on the Magistrates Court under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA).
Mr Thorburn's application on behalf of the applicant is really, in truth, an attempt to stop the use of the common property laundry for the benefit of all proprietors so as to reduce the lot proprietors' costs of holding and leasing the individual lots. In the Tribunal's view, that is an improper motive for the Tribunal's jurisdiction to be enlivened. It is for the respondent to distribute the costs of water, electricity and gas as used by whomever where it is unmetered to a particular lot in accordance with the ST Act, which is in accordance with lot entitlements.
There is a possibility that by-laws could be included to distribute the costs between lot proprietors to reflect the lot proprietors who use, or whose tenants, or occupants use, the utilities in the communal laundry by the installation of a washing machine or dryer, and they would thereby pay a greater portion of the utilities consumed via the communal laundry than those who did not so use the communal laundry. It is conceivable that that could be achieved under the ST Act; however, the respondent's by-laws have not been so altered.
The respondent has no power to charge the occupants and tenants directly and it is not proper for the respondent to distribute the unmetered electricity, gas and water usage to the common property laundry in any way other than based on lot entitlements under the current by-laws. This is a matter for the respondent to make decisions about at an AGM or an EGM. The Tribunal is not a body that oversees or supervises what decisions the respondent has or has not lawfully made. The Tribunal has specific powers and it is for the respondent and the members in an AGM or an EGM to make valid rules by which the respondent may operate and discharge its functions. Accordingly, this aspect of the application is dismissed.
• Whether the respondent has failed to keep in good and serviceable repair and maintain, replace and renew the fittings and fixtures in the common property laundry and, in particular, the taps sets, plumbing and electrical connections and devices (issue (e))
The Tribunal refers to Exhibit 9 which comprises the photographs taken by Mr Thorburn of the common property communal laundry. All tap sets, faucets and sinks appear to be in good order. Some have washing machine hoses attached to devices added to the tap sets for that purpose. The laundry looks to be newly plastered with a float coat, although there is no evidence to that effect.
There is evidence that the respondent has expended $1,012 for electrical works in the laundry (Exhibits 2 and 6). Mr Ron Edwards gave evidence that an RCD surge suppressant device had been installed and new power points had been installed or were to be installed to the laundry. Mr Thorburn did not give evidence, and did not suggest that the taps were broken and not in good repair. Exhibit 9 showed that all of the sinks, tap sets and faucets were in good order. No expert evidence was called that the tap sets, sinks or faucets were not in good working order. The Tribunal identified one area referred to in the photograph by Mr Thorburn where a tap set, faucets and sink had been apparently removed. There is no evidence why that tap set, faucet and sink had been removed, and whether they were broken, leaking, surplus to requirements, or suffered any other defect causing the removal. What is not clear is whether they are going to be replaced. The tap set, faucet and sink had been removed, and it is clear that the brickwork or the plaster surface has been remediated and that the hot and cold water pipes had been professionally closed off. This does not suggest a failure to discharge a duty to maintain the common property.
There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the work to the laundry was complete or incomplete. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the work to the laundry by the respondent, and particularly the work to the area of the missing tap set, faucet and sink, is complete. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence that the respondent has failed to discharge its duty to maintain the common property, manage it for the benefit of all of the lot proprietors or failed to keep it the fixtures in good working order.
For this reason, the Tribunal shall dismiss this aspect of the application.
That deals with all of the six items that were identified as the true issues on 5 May 2014.
Costs
Sections 81(7) and (11), and s 84 of the ST Act prohibit the Tribunal from making an order for the payment of costs in connection with the application and further prohibits the respondent from levying against a party in respect of any lot, a contribution towards the cost incurred by the respondent in relation to the application before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall not make an order for costs in this matter.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concludes that on the evidence, the respondent has failed to exercise the duty to manage the common property for the benefit of all the lot proprietors in certain respects only. In the case of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, the respondent has failed to consider whether the parking of a bicycle or the parking of a vehicle on the common property is to be given permission, and, if not, to enforce the by-law. In the case of the lot in the photograph displaying a clothes horse, the respondent has failed to consider whether to grant permission and, if not, to enforce the bylaws.
Other matters
The applicant, through Mr Thorburn, brought the proceedings originally pursuant to s 99A of the ST Act, which, save for the hint referred to above, has no relationship with orders sought. The applicant's application was disjointed, incorrectly drafted, and indistinct when it was made, and the true disputes were difficult to discern. The application suggested that the Tribunal has a supervisory or review jurisdiction in relation to the decisions made by the Council of the respondent in general meeting. The Tribunal has specific powers conferred on it by reason of very specific provisions of the ST Act and s 15 and s 17 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The Tribunal does not stand in the shoes of the members of the respondent in general meeting and make the decision afresh or make the correct and preferable decision as in the case of merits review. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in a matter such as this is to resolve the dispute between the parties (s 83 of the ST Act). In this case, the broad allegation was that the respondent had either failed to discharge various duties or its officers had acted beyond their power in entering into the strata management agreement. If the respondent has or is in the process of discharging its duties, it is not for the Tribunal to judge whether it should have discharged those duties differently or faster. Particularly, it is not for the Tribunal to judge whether the duty should have been discharged in the manner advanced by a minority member of the Council or a minority member at the general meeting of members. Further, a number of the issues in dispute were raised by the applicant, through Mr Thorburn, in circumstances in which the applicant's director, Mr Thorburn, was or should have been aware that the contention was ill-founded. The best example is the allegation that the agreement on 17 February 2014 was not validly executed by a member of the Council and was not authorised by the respondent. There was no basis for that allegation, and the Tribunal's time, the respondent's members' time and the witnesses' time was substantially taken up in taking evidence on and identifying, resolving an issue that the applicant knew or should have known was not a true issue in dispute. Unfortunately, in this matter the Tribunal does not have power to order costs so there will be no costs orders. As to the final orders, the Tribunal shall make the following orders.
Orders
For the reasons referred to above the Tribunal made final orders on 22 September 2014 in the following terms:
1.Pursuant to s 81 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the application is amended to reflect that the application is properly brought pursuant to s 83 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) and not s 99A(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
2.Pursuant to s 81 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the application is amended to reflect the correct name of the applicant as Flynne Pty Ltd.
3.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the applicant's application that the respondent's annual general meeting held on 12 February 2014 and the resolutions passed at that meeting are not valid or are of no effect is dismissed.
4.Pursuant to s 81(3) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) by 31 October 2014, the respondent shall enforce the bylaws in respect of Lots (Units) 9, 10, 11 and 12 and, in particular, Sch 2 By-laws 1 and 7 and, in enforcing the Sch 2 Bylaws, shall consider whether written permission should be granted to the Lot proprietor, occupier or tenants of Lots (Units) 9, 10, 11 and 12 to:
(a)park any vehicle on any part of the common property;
(b)park a bicycle on the common property (balcony or veranda);
(c)hang any washing, towel, bedding, clothing or other article on any part of the common property balcony which is visible from outside the building at all or at any particular period of time;
5.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the application concerning the removal of obstacles to the common property immediately adjacent to Lots (Units) 9, 10, 11 and 12 is dismissed, those objectionable items having been removed by the date of the final hearing.
6.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the application that the respondent has not entered into a valid strata management agreement with Ron Edwards & Associates Pty Ltd signed on 17 February 2014 is dismissed.
7.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the applicant's application concerning the respondent's failure to remove washing machines and dryers in the common property communal laundry by Lot proprietors, their occupants or tenants, is dismissed.
8.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the applicant's application concerning the respondent's distribution of unmetered gas, water and electricity charges by Lot proprietors, their occupants or tenants is, dismissed.
9.Pursuant to s 83(1) and s 81(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the applicant's application concerning the respondent's management of the common property communal laundry and obligation to keep fittings and fixtures in good repair is dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding [86] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS N OWEN-CONWAY, MEMBER
Annexure A
Exhibit Number
Document
Production
Tender Witness
1.
Application to Tribunal 12/2/2014 including:
• email trail between Ron Edwards and Mr Thorburn dated 10 and 13/1/2014
• Section 77B ST Act certificate
• Strata Plan 6267 including plan
• Schedule of settlement
• Local Authority Certificate
• Ground Floor Plan
• First Floor plan
• Annexure B to plan
• Record of Certificate of Title Lot 9
Applicant
Applicant
2.
Joint Submission by Colin Anderson and Michael Upton 13/3/14 including:
• email from Mr Thorburn 10/1/14 (included in Exhibit 1)
• email from Ron Edwards 13/1/2014
• email from Mr Thorburn 7/2/14
• email from Colin Anderson 28/1/14
• Minutes of AGM 5/3/13
• Notice dated 12/1/14 of AGM on 12/2/14
• Minutes of AGM 12/2/14
3.
Copy Attached (Mr Thorburn)
• Exclusive appointment to act as agent manager of a Strata Company period 1/3/14 - 28/2/15
• Executed 17/2/14 by Anderson + Hill as Council and signed annexure
Highlighted (Mr Thorburn)
• Copy Deed Assignment and Sale of Strata Management
• Asset dated 7/3/14
Copy attached
• (Mr Thorburn) letter from ProActive Strata Management to Applicant Pty Ltd dated 12/3/14
Copy attached
• Letter to Applicant dated 12/3/14
Applicant
4.
Copy highlighted (Mr Thorburn)
• email from Mr Thorburn to Ron Edwards dated 11/3/14
5.
Copy highlighted (Mr Thorburn)
• email from Mr Thorburn to Rob Edwards dated 4 April 2014
6.
Documents produced on Summons by Ron Edwards + Associates Pty Ltd including:
• email 28/2/14 from Ron Edwards to James Donnelly
• email 26/2/14 from James Donnelly to Ron Edwards
• email Ron Edwards to James Donnelly
• email Ron Edwards to James Donnelly 10/3/14
• email 13/3/14 from Ron Edwards to Steven Donnelly
• email 12/3/14 from Steven Donnelly to Ron Edwards Associates
• email 17/3/14 from Steven Donnelly to Ron Edwards and James Donnelly
• Copy Deed of Assignment and Sale dated 7/3/14
• Copy exclusive appointment to act as agent manager of a strata company period 1/3/14 to 28/2/15
• Dated 17/2/14 signed by Anderson + Hill and signed annexure
Applicant
Mr Ron Edwards a summons to produce
7.
Amended Minutes of AGM 12/2/14
Applicant
Rob Edwards on Summons
8.
Copy highlighted (Mr Edwards)
• Exclusive appointment to act as agent manager of a Strata Company period 28/2/13-28/2/14 signed by Andersen and another on 23/8/13 and annexure
Applicant
9.
Photographs taken by Mr Thorburn:
(a) of laundry
(b) of laundry
10.
Photographs taken by Mr Thorburn of:
(a) Unit 10, Unit 11, Unit 14 and 15
(b) Unit 11
(c) Unit 10
(d) Unit 14
(e) Unit 16
11.
Email trail between Mr James Donnelly and Mr Thorburn dated 3/6/14 and 4/4/14
And attachments including:
• Letter of members on Council
• Copy exclusive appointment to act as agent manager of a strata company
• Period 1/3/14-28/4/15 signed by Andersen and Hill dated 17/2/14 and signed annexure
• Copy Deed of assignment and sale dated 7/3/14
By agreement
By appointment
12.
Letter Pro-Active Strata Management to Applicant 14/5/14 and strata roll.
0
2
3