The Owners - Strata Plan No 5319 v Price; Price v The Owners - Strata Plan No 5319

The Owners – Strata Plan No 5319 and Cheree Margaret Price appeared before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to resolve a dispute concerning minor works carried out by Price on the common property and lot property of Lot 8 in Strata Plan No 5319. The Owners, as the body corporate of the strata scheme, claimed that Price had undertaken unauthorised works, which affected both the common property and the lot property, and sought an order that Price restore the areas affected by the works to their original condition.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether Price had carried out works that constituted an unauthorised change to the common property, and if so, whether these works could be rectified by Price herself or if a licensed contractor was required. The Tribunal had to determine the scope of the works that needed to be undone and reinstated, and whether Price could undertake the restoration herself or if a qualified and licensed contractor was necessary. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to decide on the costs associated with the restoration works and the procedure for determining any costs application.

The Tribunal found that Price had indeed carried out works that constituted an unauthorised change to the common property, specifically works to the wall between the laundry and pantry, and the floor space of Lot 8. It was determined that these works had affected the common property and needed to be rectified. The Tribunal ruled that Price must reinstate the wall and affected areas to a structurally sound condition and remove all unauthorised works to the floor space, except in areas comprising a kitchen, laundry, lavatory or bathroom, and reinstate the former floor covering in those areas. The Tribunal also found that the unlawful common property works must be completed by a qualified and licensed contractor by a specified date. In terms of costs, the Tribunal ordered that any application for costs must be accompanied by submissions and documents, with a specified timeline for both the application and any responses. The Tribunal further noted that costs would be determined on the papers unless a party sought to be heard in person, in which case they would need to provide reasons and a timeline for such a hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that Price must reinstate the affected areas to their original condition, with specific timelines and qualifications for the contractor to be used. The Tribunal also set out a procedure for the parties to follow in the event of a costs application, including timelines for submissions and potential hearings.