The Owners of 19 Hayes Avenue Yokine - Strata Plan 24114 and White and Anor

The Owners of 19 Hayes Avenue Yokine - Strata Plan 24114 sought a declaration that the installation of an air-conditioner on the balcony of the lot they owned was lawful. They also sought an order that the installation did not constitute a "significant inconvenience or detriment" to the other owners of lots in the strata plan. The respondents were the owners of an adjacent lot, who had objected to the installation on the basis that it caused noise and interfered with their enjoyment of their property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central issue before the court was whether the installation of the air-conditioner constituted a "significant inconvenience or detriment" to the respondents. The court considered the meaning of the phrase "significant inconvenience or detriment" in the context of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). The court held that the phrase should be interpreted in light of the common law principles of nuisance and neighbour law. The court also considered the evidence of the parties regarding the extent of the inconvenience or detriment caused by the installation.

The court held that the installation of the air-conditioner did not constitute a "significant inconvenience or detriment" to the respondents. The court found that the noise caused by the air-conditioner was not excessive and did not interfere with the respondents' enjoyment of their property. The court also found that the installation did not amount to a nuisance or a trespass. The court further held that the installation did not constitute a "material detriment" within the meaning of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). The court rejected the argument of the respondents that the installation amounted to a "material detriment" because it reduced the market value of their property.

The court made a declaration that the installation of the air-conditioner on the balcony of the lot owned by the applicants was lawful. The court also declared that the installation did not constitute a "significant inconvenience or detriment" to the respondents. The applicants were awarded their costs of the proceeding.