Gurram v Owners SP 36589

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Gurram v Owners Corporation SP 36589 [2018] NSWCATCD 39

Hearing dates:

15 March 2018

Decision date:

09 August 2018

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

T Simon, Senior Member

Decision:

The Tribunal makes the following orders:
(1) The application is dismissed

 

(2) If either party seeks to make an application for costs they are to provide to the Tribunal and the other party and any further submissions and documents in relation to costs by 30 August 2018.

 

(3) The parties are to provide to the Tribunal and other party, either in person or by post, any further submissions and documents in response by 15 September 2018.

 (4) Costs will be determined on the papers. If either party seeks to be heard in person, they should advise the Registry prior to 15 September 2018, setting out the reasons why and the Registry will advise of the outcome in due course.

Catchwords:

STRATA – minor works – works affecting common property, unauthorised works, by-law has not effect or force, harsh, unconscionable or oppressive

Legislation Cited:

Strata Schemes Management Act 1996
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Yamseedhara Reddy Gurram & Reddy Suma Batapati Govinda(applicants)
Owners Corporation SP 36589 (respondent)

Representation:

Mr T Earls - solicitor for the applicant
Mr P Ton - solicitor for the respondent

File Number(s):

SC 17/50189

Publication restriction:

Nil

Reasons for the Decision

The Application

1. By application made on 24 November 2017, the applicant lot owners seek to replace the current carpet flooring in their lot with wood flooring or in the alternative ceramic flooring. Special by-law 3 states:

That no hard flooring such as timber or ceramic floor tiles be permitted to be installed in any of the lots in the Strata Plan 36589 except for ground floor units.

This by-law does not apply to floor space comprising a kitchen, laundry, lavatory or bathroom.

2. The applicant seeks to replace the flooring on four alternative grounds.

1. That by-law 3 has no force and effect because it is inconsistent with the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (the Act).

2. In the alternative, by-law 3 is harsh, unconscionable and oppressive and in violation of section 139(1) of the Act.

3. That the Tribunal make an order under s 232 of the Act because the owners corporation has failed in its obligation to consider the minor renovation works.

4. The Owners Corporation has unreasonably refused to approve the works in accordance with s 110 of the Act

3. The applicant relied on a bundle of documents provided on 6 February 2018, further documents provided under cover of a letter dated 7 March 2018, an Acoustic report from Acoustic Dynamics dated 6 November 2017. The respondent relied on a bundle of documents provided on 7 March 2018 and statement of Suzanne Pelders dated 13 March 2018.

4. All the documents received from the party and the cross examination of the witnesses at the hearing has been considered by the Tribunal in coming to its…