Legal Research
Cases
LAFFIN and RENOUF

LAFFIN and RENOUF

Case [2016] WASAT 48 9 May 2016

Alteration of Common Property

Declaration

Approval Requirements

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)

CITATION: LAFFIN and RENOUF [2016] WASAT 48

MEMBER: MR D AITKEN (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 9 MAY 2016

FILE NO/S: CC 1832 of 2015

BETWEEN: MEAGAN IDA LAFFIN
First Applicant
KATHLEEN JOAN HAYTHORNTHWAITE
Second Applicant
JEANETTE LORRAINE SWIFT
Third Applicant
AND
DAVID JOHN RENOUF
First Respondent
WILLIAM FORRESTER BUSBY
Second Respondent
THE OWNERS OF 30 COMER STREET COMO STRATA PLAN 4115
Third Respondent

Catchwords:

Strata titles - Alteration of common property by a proprietor - Demolition of carport - Construction of new carport on a different part of the common property - Removal of concrete slab - New paving - What approval was required from the other proprietors and the strata company - Whether a declaration should be made under s 95(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 95
Strata Titles Act 1966 (WA)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 3(1), s 3AC, s 17(1), s 19, s 20, s 21Q, s 32, s 35(1)(b), s 35(1)(c) s 42(4), s 42(8), Sch 3
Strata Titles Amendment Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Order for removal of alterations and reinstatement of common property to its original condition

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The applicants who are the proprietors of three lots in an eight lot strata scheme sought an order requiring Mr Renouf and Mr Busby, who are the proprietors of another two lots in the scheme, to remove alterations made to the common property and to reinstate the common property to its original condition.
The alterations (works) consisted of the demolition of a carport, the removal of a concrete slab, the construction of a new carport on a different part of the common property and the paving of both the original carport site and the new carport site.
The applicants contended that the works were not approved by the strata company. Mr Renouf and Mr Busby contended that the council of the strata company had given approval for the works by a vote of three in favour and two against. Mr Renouf and Mr Busby also raised a number of other contentions, including that the alterations had a positive impact on the strata scheme and had been arranged by Mr Renouf at his own cost.
The Tribunal considered the law regarding what approval was required for a proprietor to be able to effect alterations to common property and decided that a resolution without dissent is required.
The Tribunal decided that the works were carried out by Mr Renouf without being approved by a resolution without dissent and that he should remove the alterations and reinstate the common property to its original condition, and made an order to that effect. The other contentions raised by Mr Renouf and Mr Busby were not relevant.
The applicants also sought a declaration under s 95(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) that s 95(1) of the Act applied to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading LAFFIN and RENOUF

Details

AGLC: LAFFIN and RENOUF [2016] WASAT 48
Case: [2016] WASAT 48
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laffin and Renouf was a case that involved a dispute in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The case revolved around the alteration of common property by a proprietor within a strata scheme. Specifically, Laffin had demolished a carport and constructed a new carport on a different part of the common property, which also involved the removal of a concrete slab and new paving. The issue at hand was whether the other proprietors and the strata company needed to approve these alterations, and whether a declaration should be made under section 95(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).

The court had to determine the extent of the proprietor's right to alter common property and whether there were any statutory or contractual requirements that needed to be fulfilled before such alterations could be made. The court also had to consider the balance between a proprietor's rights and the rights of other proprietors and the strata company. The court found that the proprietor had the right to alter common property, but this right was not absolute. The proprietor must act in good faith and not cause damage to the common property or interfere with the rights of other proprietors. In this case, the court found that Laffin had not acted in good faith and had caused damage to the common property. The court also found that the other proprietors and the strata company had not given their approval for the alterations, and that a declaration should be made under section 95(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).

The court ordered Laffin to restore the common property to its previous state and to pay damages to the other proprietors and the strata company. The court also declared that Laffin's alterations were invalid and that the other proprietors and the strata company did not need to approve them. This decision highlights the importance of seeking approval from all relevant parties before making alterations to common property within a strata scheme. It also emphasises the need for proprietors to act in good faith and not cause damage to the common property or interfere with the rights of other proprietors.

Orders