Miles v Body Corporate for Solarus Residential Community Titles

In Miles v Body Corporate for Solarus Residential Community Titles, the dispute involved a claim by a lot owner, Miles, against the body corporate of a residential strata scheme, Solarus Residential Community Titles. Miles alleged that the body corporate had failed to prevent the construction of a building that obstructed his view, which he argued constituted a nuisance and an unreasonable interference with his use and enjoyment of his lot. The matter was first heard by an adjudicator, who dismissed Miles’s application, and subsequently by the Tribunal, which upheld the adjudicator’s decision. Miles appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues in the case included whether the use of a lot constituted a nuisance or hazard, or an unreasonable interference, and if such determinations were within the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the adjudicator’s failure to find a nuisance or unreasonable interference was an error of law, and whether the adjudicator’s findings of fact constituted an error of law. The court also had to consider whether the obstruction of a view constituted an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of a lot, the process for assessing such a view and its obstruction, and whether the adjudicator was required to conduct a site inspection or had the power to conduct a hearing to test expert evidence. Another issue was whether evidence of the diminution in value of a lot was relevant to determining whether there had been an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of a lot, and whether the failure to give adequate reasons constituted an error of law.

The court held that the appeal was without merit. It found that the adjudicator’s findings of fact were not erroneous, and that the adjudicator had correctly determined that there was no nuisance, hazard, or unreasonable interference. The court also determined that the adjudicator was not required to conduct a site inspection and had the power to conduct a hearing to test expert evidence. Furthermore, the court held that evidence of the diminution in value of a lot was not relevant to the determination of whether there had been an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of a lot, and that the adjudicator’s reasons were adequate. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that any submissions on costs be filed in the Tribunal within fourteen days. Unless any party requested an oral hearing, the question of costs would be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing.