THE OWNERS OF ARBOR NORTH STRATA PLAN 67510 and SUN

The Owners of Arbor North Strata Plan 67510 sought an order against the Respondent, Ms Sun, for the removal of structures erected in the courtyard of Lot 7, which the applicant claimed was in breach of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). The dispute was heard in the Western Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (WCAT). The primary issue before WCAT was whether the structures erected in the courtyard of Lot 7 constituted a breach of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) and, if so, whether the removal of the structures would cause significant detriment and inconvenience to other lot proprietors. The Tribunal also needed to interpret the meaning of "significant detriment and inconvenience" and consider whether an order under s 95 of the SAT Act was appropriate given the respondent's failure to comply with a previous decision.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's structures in the courtyard of Lot 7 did constitute a breach of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) as they had not been approved by the other lot proprietors or the strata company. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had previously been asked to remove the structures but had not done so. The Tribunal also found that the removal of the structures would not cause significant detriment and inconvenience to other lot proprietors, as the respondent's actions had caused ongoing disruption to the strata scheme. Given the respondent's ongoing non-compliance with the strata company's requests to remove the structures and her lack of engagement in the proceedings, the Tribunal made a declaration that s 95 of the SAT Act applied. This means that failure by the respondent to comply with the Tribunal's order will constitute an offence for which a penalty of up to $10,000 will apply.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent to remove the structures from the courtyard of Lot 7. The Tribunal also declared that s 95 of the SAT Act applied, meaning that failure by the respondent to comply with the Tribunal's order will constitute an offence for which a penalty of up to $10,000 will apply. The Tribunal's decision provides guidance on the interpretation of "significant detriment and inconvenience" and the circumstances in which an order under s 95 of the SAT Act may be appropriate.