Tenant's refusal to consent to by-law repeal upheld in NSW
📌 In brief
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided that a tenant's refusal to allow the removal of a by-law giving them exclusive use of common property was reasonable. The court considered the tenant's rights and the lack of compensation offered for the loss of exclusive use.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's refusal to consent to the repeal of a by-law granting exclusive use of common property is reasonable if supported by valid reasons.
- The interests and proprietary rights of the tenants are protected, especially when there has been no offer of compensation for any diminishment in value.
- The longevity of the special by-law since 1991 was considered important, showing that nothing significant had changed to warrant its repeal.
- Tenants currently using the car spaces as part of their tenancy agreements would lose a benefit if the by-law were repealed.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The application to repeal the by-law without offering compensation for the potential financial loss to the tenants was deemed unreasonable.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could refuse to allow the removal of a by-law that granted them exclusive use of common property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant's refusal was reasonable because the tenant had valid reasons for refusing and the interests of the tenant were protected.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 sections 158 and 209 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's refusal was reasonable due to the lack of compensation offered for the loss of exclusive use.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, supporting the tenant's refusal to consent to the repeal of the by-law.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that their refusal to consent to the removal of a by-law granting exclusive use of common property may be considered reasonable if they have valid reasons and the interests of the tenant are protected.