Ghabour v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 53284

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ghabour v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 53284 [2019] NSWCATCD 18
Hearing dates: 19 February 2019
Date of orders: 26 February 2019
Decision date: 26 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S A McDonald, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) Application dismissed.

Catchwords: Strata schemes – installation of security cameras on common property by unitholder – no by-law or resolution of owners corporation in support – notice to comply – direction to remove by owners corporation
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015
Cases Cited: Gurram v Owners Corporation SP36589 [2018] NSWCATCD 39;
Lai v. Community Association DP 270214 [2016] NSWCATCD 58;
The Owners – Strata Plan 30198 v Barnes [2018] NSW CATCD 8
Yardy v Owners Corporation SP57237 [2018] NSWCATCD 19;
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hanan Ghabour (Applicant)
The Owners – Strata Plan No. 53284 (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Branis Rolj (Strata Manager, All Suburbs Strata Management) (Respondent)
File Number(s): SC 18/42524 (Interim Relief – SC 18/42521)
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an application by the owner of Unit XX, XXX-XXX The XX, Gymea, NSW, 2227 (being Lot 10 in Strata Plan 53284) (the unit) seeking relief in the Tribunal pursuant to ss 24, 126, 131 and 232 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (SSMA). That relief is sought in respect of certain notices and directions issued by the Respondent (being The Owners – Strata Plan No. 53284) to the Applicant on or about 25 August 2018 to remove two security cameras which were affixed to the external wall of Unit 10 and certain pot plants on common property adjacent to Unit 10.

Background

  1. This matter was also the subject of an application in the Tribunal for interim orders – SC 18/42521 – which was filed on 3 October 2018 in the Liverpool registry of the Tribunal. The application for interim relief was heard on an urgent basis in the Tribunal before the Deputy President on 12 October 2018 when the following orders were made:

  1. The Owners Corporation is restrained from taking any action to remove or interfere with the two cameras installed by the Applicant pending the formal hearing;

  2. The Applicant is to provide to the Strata Manager the information not yet provided and required by the Owners Corporation to consider the Applicant’s request for retention of the cameras within 14 days;

  3. The Owners Corporation is to call and conduct an Extraordinary General Meeting to consider the Applicant’s request for permission to retain the cameras and put pot plants within 20 days of the provision of the information referred to in order 2;

  4. Leave is given to Ms Freels to represent the Respondent.

  1. The relief granted by the Deputy President was, of course, granted on an interlocutory basis - namely whether the Applicant could establish her case on a prima facie basis and whether the balance of convenience…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ghabour v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 53284 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
[2019] NSWCATCD 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ghabour v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 53284 arose from a dispute in a strata scheme in Melbourne where the applicant, Ghabour, had installed security cameras on common property without any by-law or resolution from the owners corporation. Following an objection from another unitholder, the owners corporation issued a notice to comply and subsequently directed the removal of the cameras. Ghabour challenged the validity of the direction to remove the cameras, leading to proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the owners corporation had the authority to direct the removal of the cameras and whether the direction was valid.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the owners corporation had the authority to direct the removal of the cameras installed by Ghabour. Ghabour argued that since there was no by-law or resolution prohibiting the installation of cameras on common property, the owners corporation lacked the authority to direct their removal. Conversely, the owners corporation contended that it had the authority to manage the common property and could direct the removal of anything that it deemed an encroachment or a nuisance.

The court found that the owners corporation had the inherent power to manage the common property and to direct the removal of anything that could be considered an encroachment or a nuisance, regardless of the absence of a specific by-law or resolution. The court held that the owners corporation's direction to remove the cameras was valid and dismissed Ghabour's application. The reasoning of the court was based on the principle that owners corporations have inherent powers to maintain the common property and ensure it is not used in a manner that could be detrimental to other unitholders. The court concluded that the owners corporation's direction was within its inherent powers and did not require a specific by-law or resolution to be valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Application dismissed.

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.