Ren v Strata Corporation 12753 Inc

The appeal concerned a dispute between a unit owner, the appellant, and the strata corporation, the respondent, regarding alterations made to a unit. The core of the disagreement centred on whether the work undertaken by the appellant constituted "prescribed work" under section 29 of the relevant Act, which would have required authorisation from the strata corporation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the installation of large stud walls within the unit amounted to "prescribed work" as defined by section 29(6) of the Act, and consequently, whether the appellant had breached the Act by failing to obtain the necessary authorisation from the strata corporation. The court was also required to consider the meaning of "alteration" and "erection" within the context of the statutory definition of "prescribed work".

The court reasoned that the definition of "prescribed work" in section 29(6) includes the erection or alteration of a building or structure, and that there is no legislative requirement for such work to be permanent. The ordinary meaning of these terms was applied, and the court found that the installation of large stud walls, adjoining the floor and ceiling, constituted both an erection of a structure and an alteration of the building. Therefore, the work fell within the definition of "prescribed work" and required authorisation under section 29(1). As there was no evidence that the strata corporation had passed a special resolution authorising these works, the appellant was in breach of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had breached the Act.