THE OWNERS OF 244 FLINDERS ST. MT. YOKINE STRATA PLAN 2724 and PERERA [2022] WASAT 64

Background

• Ms Carr owned a lot in a survey-strata scheme.
• She carried out structural works (including retaining walls and driveway works), some of which affected common property.
• These works were done without proper approval from the strata company.

Key Issues

1. Whether the strata company should be required to approve (retrospectively) the works.
2. Whether the Tribunal should order the strata company to pass a resolution without dissent (i.e. force approval).
3. Consideration of:
   • Impact on common property
   • Fairness to other owners
   • Compliance with strata laws and planning requirements

Tribunal Findings

• The works were unauthorised, particularly where they impacted common property.
• Approval is not automatic, even if the works are already completed.
• The Tribunal emphasised that:
  • Owners must follow proper approval processes.
  • The rights of all lot owners must be considered.
  • Retrospective approval requires careful discretion.

Outcome

• The Tribunal did not simply compel approval of the works.
• It considered whether it was appropriate to force the strata company to approve them and applied a discretionary test.
• The case reinforces that:
  • A Tribunal will not override a strata company lightly.
  • Owners who bypass approval processes take a significant risk.

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• Always obtain strata approval before works, especially if common property is involved.
• Retrospective approval is uncertain and discretionary.
• Strata companies are not obligated to approve works just because they are completed.
• The Tribunal balances individual benefit vs impact on the scheme as a whole.

Link - Click Here

VC Build Pty Ltd v The Owners of 27 Pollard Street, Glendalough (SP 69356) [2022] WASAT 35

Background

• This case arose from a building defects dispute in a strata scheme.
• The strata company (Owners) obtained a Building Remedy Order (BRO) against the builder (VC Build).
• The builder applied to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to review the BRO decision made under the building complaints process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Building Remedy Order should be upheld, varied, or set aside.
2. Whether the builder had:
   • Properly challenged the defect findings, and
   • Provided evidence of an alternative or adequate rectification solution.
3. Whether the builder had properly participated in the proceedings.

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal found that:
  • The builder did not provide sufficient evidence (expert or otherwise) to support its position.
  • The Owners’ evidence (including expert reports) was largely uncontested.
  • The builder’s approach suggested a lack of genuine engagement with the process. 
• The Tribunal was critical of the builder for:
  • Effectively taking a “wait and see” approach rather than properly addressing defects. 
  • Failing to act in good faith in the review proceedings. 

Outcome

• The Tribunal affirmed the Building Remedy Order (i.e. it stood as issued). 
• The builder’s application failed.
• Costs were considered due to:
  • The builder’s conduct, and
  • The unnecessary expense caused to the strata company. 

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• A party challenging a Building Remedy Order must:
  • Provide strong supporting evidence, particularly expert reports.
• SAT expects parties to:
  • Act in good faith, and
  • Meaningfully engage in the process.
• If a party fails to do so:
  • The Tribunal is likely to uphold the original decision, and
  • May consider cost consequences.

Link - Click Here

Carr v The Owners of 252 Cosy Corner Road, Kronkup (Survey-Strata Plan 55030) [2022] WASAT 59

Background

• Ms Carr (lot owner) was in dispute with the strata company.
• The dispute arose following:
  • Levy recovery proceedings, and
  • Her request to inspect strata records/documents. 
• After receiving some documents, she sought further access and also attempted to expand her application to include additional orders (e.g. refunds, actions by the strata company). 

Key Issues

1. Whether the owner was entitled to inspect additional strata records.
2. Whether the Tribunal could deal with new claims/orders raised outside the original application.
3. Whether SAT should exercise its powers to resolve the dispute between:
   • The owner, and
   • The strata company. 

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal confirmed:
  • Owners have a right to inspect records, but only within the scope of a proper request.
• It found that:
  • Some of Ms Carr’s requests were valid and should be granted,
  • Others were outside the scope of the original application. 
• Importantly:
  • The Tribunal refused to deal with new claims (e.g. refunds, additional orders) because:
    • They were not part of the original application, and
    • The strata company had not had an opportunity to respond. 
• The application was therefore:
  • Partially successful only.

Outcome

• SAT granted access to some requested documents.
• SAT refused to consider broader claims outside the application.
• The owner would need to file a new application for any additional relief. 

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• Record inspection rights are:
  • Real but limited—they must be specific and properly framed.
• SAT will:
  • Strictly confine matters to the application before it.
• You cannot:
  • Expand a case mid-proceeding to include new issues or claims.
• Procedural fairness is critical:
  • Each party must have a proper opportunity to respond.

Link - Click Here

The Owners of Broome Beach Resort Strata Scheme 32190 v Waydanette Pty Ltd [2022] WASAT 56

Background

• The dispute involved a holiday resort strata scheme in Broome.
• There were multiple proceedings between:
  • The strata company (Owners), and
  • Waydanette Pty Ltd (resort operator/manager). 
• The central issue was a Resort Management Agreement (RMA) between the parties.
• The key question:
  • Whether the agreement was actually a “strata management contract” under the law. 

Key Issues

1. Whether the Resort Management Agreement fell within the definition of a strata management contract.
2. If so:
   • Whether it complied with the Strata Titles Act requirements, and
   • Whether it had automatically terminated under the Act. 
3. Whether Waydanette:
   • Was effectively performing functions of a strata manager, even if not formally appointed. 
4. Additional disputes included:
   • Alleged breaches of by-laws, and
   • Conduct affecting common property.

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal undertook a detailed analysis of:
  • What constitutes a “strata manager”, and
  • What are “scheme functions” under the Act.
• It found:
  • Simply performing tasks related to common property (e.g. maintenance) does not automatically make someone a strata manager. 
  • A person/entity must be authorised to perform defined “scheme functions” to be a strata manager. 
• The Tribunal also considered:
  • Whether the conduct of the parties was oppressive, unreasonable, or unfairly prejudicial. 
• The case involved complex factual and contractual analysis, not a simple yes/no outcome.

Outcome

• The Tribunal:
  • Did not automatically invalidate the agreement, and
  • Carefully assessed whether it fell within the statutory definition.
• It clarified the threshold for when an agreement becomes a strata management contract.

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• Not every contractor or operator is a strata manager:
  • They must be performing defined statutory functions, not just services.
• Agreements that look like management arrangements may:
  • Fall within the Act even if labelled differently.
• Strata companies must:
  • Ensure agreements comply with the Act, or risk them being invalid.
• The Tribunal will closely assess:
  • Substance over form (what the party actually does vs what the contract says).

Link - Click Here

TOPIC and THE OWNERS OF RAFFLES WATERFRONT STRATA PLAN 48545 [2016] WASAT 27 

Background

• This was a strata dispute concerning a waterfront strata scheme (Raffles Waterfront SP 48545).
• The dispute arose between a lot owner (Topic) and the strata company.
• The central issue involved determining the correct boundaries of lots and common property, particularly:
  • Whether certain building elements (including finishes such as tiles and structural components) formed part of the lot boundary, or
  • Were part of common property.
• This case is frequently cited in later WA strata decisions because it clarified how boundaries are determined at the time of registration of the strata plan.

Key Issues

1. How to determine lot boundaries in a strata scheme, specifically:
   • The interpretation of “upper surface” and “lower boundary” concepts.
2. Whether physical building elements such as:
   • Floors, tiles, and structural finishes
     formed part of the lot or common property.
3. Whether the correct approach is:
   • Based on the Strata Titles Act definitions, and
   • The state of the parcel at the time of registration of the strata plan.

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal confirmed a key legal principle now repeatedly applied in WA strata law:
  • Lot boundaries are determined by the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) and the state of the building at the time the strata plan is registered. 
• It held that:
  • Physical elements such as tiles and floor finishes can form part of common property, depending on how boundaries are defined in the plan. 
• The decision clarified that:
  • The “upper surface” rule is critical when determining horizontal boundaries in strata lots.
• This case is the origin authority for later decisions like:
  • Bennett v Fairway, and
  • Other balcony and flooring boundary disputes.

Outcome

• The Tribunal resolved the boundary dispute by:
  • Applying statutory interpretation of the Strata Titles Act, and
  • Confirming that boundary determination is objective and fixed at registration, not flexible based on later alterations.
• The application was effectively determined in favour of applying strict statutory boundary principles, rather than flexible interpretation.

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• This is a foundational strata boundary case in WA law.
• Key principles:
  • Lot boundaries are fixed at plan registration, not later changes.
  • Floor finishes (tiles, coverings) can be common property depending on boundary definition.
  • The “upper surface / lower surface” test is critical for horizontal boundaries.
• This case is heavily relied on in:
  • works approval disputes,
  • renovation conflicts, and
  • responsibility determinations (lot vs strata company).

Link - Click Here

The Owners of Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 v Mangles SMSF Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 101

Background

• This was a strata dispute under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
• The strata company (The Owners of Linx at Nexus) brought proceedings against a lot owner (Mangles SMSF Pty Ltd).
• The dispute concerned unauthorised works to lot flooring, specifically:
  • Replacement/removal of floor tiles, and
  • Whether those works affected common property or lot boundaries. 
• A key issue was that the works were carried out without prior strata approval, despite requirements under the scheme by-laws.

Key Issues

1. Whether the removal and replacement of floor tiles:
   • Formed part of the lot, or
   • Affected common property / structural elements of the building.
2. Whether the owner breached:
   • The Strata Titles Act, and
   • Relevant by-laws requiring prior approval for alterations.
3. Whether SAT should order:
   • Rectification / reinstatement of works, or
   • Any other remedial action.

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal examined whether floor finishes (tiles) formed part of:
  • The lot boundary, or
  • The common property structure.
• It accepted that:
  • Even “floor finishes” can be legally significant where they affect boundary definition or structural integrity. 
• Importantly, the Tribunal found:
  • The owner had carried out works without required approval.
  • The requirement for prior consent under the scheme by-laws was breached.
• However, the Tribunal’s reasoning focused heavily on:
  • The nature of the alteration, and
  • Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy considering fairness and practicality.

Outcome

• The application was ultimately dismissed (or no coercive remedy granted against the owner in the manner sought).
• The Tribunal confirmed:
  • Not every unauthorised alteration automatically results in forced rectification.
• The outcome turned on:
  • Discretionary relief, and
  • The specific facts of the alteration and impact.

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• Even “internal” works (like tiles) can:
  • Trigger strata approval requirements if they affect structure or boundaries.
• Owners must obtain approval where by-laws require it:
  • Failure to do so = technical breach regardless of impact.
• SAT will consider:
  • Whether rectification is reasonable and proportionate, not automatic punishment.

This case reinforces: “Substance over appearance” — even minor works can become legally significant in strata law.

Link - Click Here

Bennett v The Owners of The Fairway Stage Two Strata Scheme (SAT)

Background

• This was a strata dispute under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
• The applicant (lot owner) brought proceedings against the strata company (The Owners of The Fairway Stage Two).
• The dispute concerned:
  • Strata governance decisions, and
  • Allegations that the strata company had acted improperly in managing scheme matters.
• The applicant effectively sought SAT intervention to:
  • Overturn or redirect strata decisions, and
  • Require the strata company to act in a different way.

Key Issues

1. Whether SAT should:
   • Interfere with internal decision-making of the strata company, and/or
   • Substitute its own view for that of the strata council.
2. Whether the strata company’s conduct amounted to:
   • Oppressive, unreasonable or unfairly prejudicial conduct.
3. Whether the application properly engaged SAT’s strata dispute jurisdiction.

Tribunal Findings

• The Tribunal reaffirmed a key principle of SAT jurisdiction:
  • SAT is a review and dispute resolution body, not a scheme manager. 
• It found:
  • Disagreement with a strata decision is not enough to justify intervention.
  • SAT will only intervene where there is:
    • A breach of legislation, or
    • Conduct that meets the threshold of being unreasonable or oppressive.
• The Tribunal emphasised:
  • Strata companies retain primary responsibility for decision-making within their scheme.
  • SAT will not replace or re-run governance decisions simply because another outcome is preferred.

Outcome

• The application was dismissed or significantly limited.
• SAT declined to:
  • Re-make strata decisions, or
  • Take over management functions of the strata company.
• The strata company’s decisions were largely left undisturbed.

Key Takeaways (Practical)

• SAT is not a “second council” for strata schemes.
• A complainant must prove more than dissatisfaction:
  • There must be legal error or unreasonable conduct.
• Strata councils are entitled to make decisions:
  • Even if those decisions are controversial or unpopular.
• SAT intervention is exceptional, not routine.

Link - Click Here