Validity of Building Management Agreement Confirmed by Court of Appeal
📌 In brief
The Court of Appeal confirmed the validity of a Building Management Agreement between a strata corporation and a building manager. Despite issues with how the agreement was initially executed, the court ruled that the actions of both parties demonstrated a mutual understanding and acceptance of the agreement's terms.
⚖️ Legal holding
A strata corporation can enter into a binding agreement for the management of common property if the parties act in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
📖 Technical summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the Building Management Agreement.
📚 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 parties' conduct in adhering to the terms of the Building Management Agreement for years demonstrated an intention to be bound by those terms.
- The strata corporation's actions, including monthly budget submissions and payments, indicated a mutual understanding that they were operating under the agreement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that the Building Management Agreement was invalid due to improper execution by the strata corporation did not succeed.
- The claim that specific performance should be granted to enforce the agreement was rejected due to the lack of trust and goodwill between the parties.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Court of Appeal confirmed the validity of the Building Management Agreement between the strata corporation and the building manager.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute centered around the validity of a Building Management Agreement and whether it was properly executed by the strata corporation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the agreement was valid based on the conduct of the parties, which demonstrated an intention to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, sections 8, 9, 13, 62, 65, 113, and 238 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the conduct of the parties demonstrated an intention to be bound by the terms of the agreement, regardless of the irregularities in its execution.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, affirming the validity of the Building Management Agreement.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that the validity of a Building Management Agreement can be confirmed based on the conduct of the parties, even if the agreement was not properly executed according to formal procedures.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the Building Management Agreement, the Deed of Acknowledgment, and the conduct of the parties in adhering to the terms of the agreement.