Body Corporate Management Update: Owner Gets To Keep Balcony

Who is responsible for fixing a balcony on common property that has fallen into disrepair but was constructed without the approval of the body corporate? The answer may surprise you.

Introduction

It is not uncommon for owners to build structures on common property without the approval of their body corporate. But what happens when these structures fall into disrepair? Who is responsible for fixing them? And can the body corporate insist on those structures being demolished? The recent decision in Davenport -v-The Owners’ Strata Plan 536; The Owners’ Strata Plan 536 -v-Davenports [2018] NSWCATAP 301 provides answers to these questions.

The Case

Ms Davenport owns an apartment in a four apartment building in Rose Bay, Sydney. There is a balcony attached to her apartment. The balcony was not constructed as part of the original building. Instead, the balcony was constructed in about 1968, several years after the strata plan for the building was registered. Over time, the condition of the balcony deteriorated. The cost to repair the balcony was substantial. For that reason, the body corporate of the building decided not to repair the balcony and, instead, to demolish it. Ms Davenport objected to the demolition of the balcony and her dispute with the body corporate ended up in NCAT.

The NCAT Decision

In January 2018, NCAT ordered the body corporate to demolish the balcony at its expense. NCAT concluded that the balcony was an illegal structure that had never been approved by the body corporate and ought to be demolished. Ms Davenport appealed against NCAT’s decision. Her appeal was successful, and the Appeal Panel ordered the body corporate to repair the balcony (instead of demolishing it) and invalidated the resolution they had passed to demolish the balcony.

The Reasoning

The body corporate argued that the balcony was an illegal structure because the construction of the balcony had never been approved by them through a special bylaw. The Appeal Panel rejected that argument. The Appeal Panel held that at the time the balcony was all of the apartments in the building were owned by the same people who could, by their own unanimous resolution passed at their own meeting or a meeting of the body corporate, approve the construction of the balcony without a special by-law. The Appeal Panel reached this rather surprising conclusion because it considered that the Conveyancing (StrataTitles) Act 1961 (which applied at the time the balcony was constructed) did not deprive the owners of their right to deal with the common property (which they owned under the 1961 Act), for example, by passing a unanimous resolution to allow a balcony to be constructed on the common property. The Appeal Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that all of the owners approved the construction of the balcony by unanimous resolution. For that reason, the balcony was not an illegal structure but rather was approved by the owners and became common property. This meant that the body corporate was responsible for repairing the balcony in accordance with this statutory duty to maintain and repair common property under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

The Decision to Demolish the Balcony

However, the dispute did not end there. At an annual general meeting held on 13 September 2016, the body corporate passed an ordinary resolution to demolish the balcony. The Appeal Panel had to decide whether the body corporate could validly pass this resolution given its finding that the balcony was lawfully constructed.

The body corporate submitted that it had the authority to pass the resolution to demolish the balcony. This is because section 106(3) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 allows a body corporate to determine by special resolution that it is inappropriate to repair a particular item of common property.

In a rather surprising conclusion, the Appeal Panel held that the power for a body corporate to decline to repair a particular item of common property carries with it the power to demolish that item of property particularly where it has fallen into disrepair. Indeed, the Appeal Panel considered that in this way a body corporate could give effect to a determination made under section 106(3) not to repair an item of common property otherwise the common property would remain in a state of disrepair which may create problems in the future.

However, the Appeal Panel considered that the resolution passed by the body corporate to demolish the balcony was invalid. This was because the body corporate only passed an ordinary resolution to demolish the balcony (instead of a special resolution) which it could only do if the balcony was unauthorised (which it was not). The Appeal Panel concluded that because the balcony was authorised work that had fallen into disrepair, the body corporate needed to pass a special resolution to determine not to repair the balcony and the resolution that was passed on 13 September 2016 was not a special resolution. Further, the Appeal Panel decided that the resolution of the body corporate was defective in form because the resolution, by its terms, did not record a determination by the body corporate that it was inappropriate to repair the balcony and that failing to repair the balcony would not affect the safety or detract from the appearance of the building.

Additionally, the Appeal Panel considered that even if the body corporate had passed a special resolution, that resolution should be set aside because the body corporate did not have regard to all relevant factors in determining whether or not it was appropriate to repair the balcony. For example, the Appeal Panel considered that the body corporate decided to remove the balcony because it considered it was an illegal structure and because the cost of repairing the balcony was significantly more than the cost of removing it but ignored Ms Davenport’s rights to access and use the balcony.

Key Takeaways

Unanimous consent matters: Even without formal by-laws, unanimous agreement among original owners can legitimise alterations to common property.
Responsibility for repairs: Body corporates are generally responsible for maintaining and repairing common property, even if it was initially unauthorised.
Due process is essential: Body corporates must follow proper procedures when making decisions about common property, including considering all relevant factors and passing valid resolutions.

Protecting Your Interests

This case highlights the importance of understanding your rights and obligations within a body corporate. Whether you’re dealing with unauthorised alterations, maintenance disputes, or other strata issues, having a knowledgeable and proactive body corporate manager on your side can make a significant difference.