Woodhouse v The Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk

The appeal was brought by the applicant, Woodhouse, against the decision of the Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk. The dispute centred on the Body Corporate's decision to remove a hedge that was growing on common property but was obstructing the applicant's lot. The applicant had refused to allow the Body Corporate access to their lot to maintain the hedge. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Adjudicator erred in law by not considering section 94(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Titles Act and whether the Body Corporate's decision to remove the hedge was reasonable. The applicant argued that the Adjudicator failed to properly consider the statutory provision, which allows for an application to be made to the court to set aside an unreasonable decision of a body corporate. The applicant also contended that the Body Corporate acted unreasonably in passing the motion to remove the hedge.

The court found that the Adjudicator did not err in law by failing to consider section 94(2) of the Act, as it was not necessary to do so in the context of the application before the Adjudicator. The court further held that the Body Corporate acted reasonably in passing the motion to remove the hedge, as it was necessary for the maintenance of the common property and the hedge was causing damage to the applicant's property. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the decision of the Body Corporate to remove the hedge was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.