@leif said:
There seems to be too much simplification even by the legal people that then makes it open for wrong interpretations and often the difference between a property registered as domestic is confused with one registered for other use.
There seems to be a consensus among strata lawyers with, for instance, Teys Lawyers also issuing a press release that says, in summary:
The Section 62 (2) duty to renew or replace fixtures or fittings connotes no more than the installation of one thing in the place of another to achieve functional equivalence;
Anything amounting to improved or enhanced functionality to lot owners requires a special resolution under Section 65 A;
A Section 62 (3) resolution not to renew or replace a particular item cannot be impugned on the basis that those who voted in favour did not in fact subscribe to the view that it was inappropriate to maintain, renew, replace or repair property and that the decision would not affect safety;
The proprietary rights of owners in common property does not impose positive duties on the owners corporation that modify the statutory duties;
Section 62 resolutions leave very little room for the operation of the doctrine of fraud on the minority because Section 62 (3) contemplates a loss rights by a minority in relation to common property;
A breach of Section 62 by an owners corporation does not give rise to an action for damages for breach of statutory duty.
There’s an awful lot in that and there will be more. For instance, will the rich and powerful no longer be able to skip CTTT adjudications by taking their cases to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it can award damages and the CTTT can’t? If the Supreme Court now also can’t award damages in these cases, then it’s back to the Tribunal for the heavy hitters.