The Owners Strata Plan No 2245 v Veney
Case
•
[2020] NSWSC 134
•27 February 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Owners Strata Plan No 2245 v Veney [2020] NSWSC 134
[2020] NSWSC 134
27 February 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of The Owners Strata Plan No 2245 v Veney involved a dispute within a strata titled property concerning the interpretation of a special by-law and the obligations of lot owners regarding parking and nuisance. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, the body corporate representing the strata plan, sought to enforce certain by-laws against the defendant, a lot owner, who had parked his vehicle in a designated parking lot within the strata scheme. The defendant argued that the special by-law, which conferred a right to use part of the common property for parking, was not intended to replace the right to park in the existing parking lot, and that his parking did not constitute a nuisance under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW).
The court was required to determine the proper construction of the special by-law and whether the defendant's parking constituted a nuisance under the Act. The court held that the by-law was to be construed in a manner that did not result in the substitution of one right for another, and that the defendant's parking did not amount to a nuisance. The court found that the defendant's parking did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the rights of other owners or occupiers of lots, despite the presence of gardens on the common property causing some inconvenience. The court emphasised the importance of a cautious approach when using extrinsic circumstances to aid in the construction of the by-law, and that the by-law should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the intention of the parties.
The court's decision was that the special by-law was not intended to replace the right to park in the existing parking lot, and that the defendant's parking did not constitute a nuisance. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and made no orders. This case provides useful guidance for lot owners and body corporates in strata titled properties regarding the interpretation of by-laws and the obligations of lot owners in relation to parking and nuisance.
The court was required to determine the proper construction of the special by-law and whether the defendant's parking constituted a nuisance under the Act. The court held that the by-law was to be construed in a manner that did not result in the substitution of one right for another, and that the defendant's parking did not amount to a nuisance. The court found that the defendant's parking did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the rights of other owners or occupiers of lots, despite the presence of gardens on the common property causing some inconvenience. The court emphasised the importance of a cautious approach when using extrinsic circumstances to aid in the construction of the by-law, and that the by-law should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the intention of the parties.
The court's decision was that the special by-law was not intended to replace the right to park in the existing parking lot, and that the defendant's parking did not constitute a nuisance. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and made no orders. This case provides useful guidance for lot owners and body corporates in strata titled properties regarding the interpretation of by-laws and the obligations of lot owners in relation to parking and nuisance.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adverse Possession
-
Easements & Covenants
-
Nuisance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
DELGA NOMINEES PTY LTD and THE OWNERS OF 5 GALE STREET BUSSELTON (STRATA SCHEME 25723) [2025] WASAT 7
Cases Citing This Decision
24
Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853
[2023] NSWCA 103
The Owners - Strata Plan No. 3407 v Edgar and Edgar
[2025] NSWCATCD 71
Kentwell v The Owners Strata Plan No 2056
[2025] NSWCATCD 96
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
3
The Owners of Strata Plan No 3397 v Tate
[2007] NSWCA 207
The Owners of Strata Plan No 3397 v Tate
[2007] NSWCA 207
Hargrave v Goldman
[1963] HCA 56