At first it seems simple but are we trying to simplify it to the point it does not work
To me there are three different cases:
1. Maintenance
2. Enhancements
3. Change
Light bulb breaks and is changed under maintenance not an option but an obligation
Light bulb breaks and is changed to a chandelier under maintenance an option but only under a special resolution
Chandelier breaks and is changed to a light bulb under maintenance an option but only under a unanimous resolution
Compensation and damages:
If the common property is not maintained an owner is entitled to both damages and compensation
Enhancement (positive) the majority rules and the losers do not get damages or compensation
Changes that has negative impact on a lot value without the lot owners consent and (any) owner is entitled to both damages and compensation
Exceptions:
Only a unanimous decision by the owners can change the above, and a new owner needs to be aware of this when purchasing into a property where this has been done
The ultimate law is the Australian law that does not approve of the majority stealing from the minority any local law that does not have all involved agreeing is overridden by the federal law.
In summary if you know the law has been broken you go to court and get both damages and compensation, if you think or believe the law has been broken you get advice and an arbitrator may be cheaper than a solicitor.
If you only want it fixed, and do not seek damages or compensation, the option of an arbitrator may be the simplest and quickest option.
An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property (SSMA 1996 s. 62(1))
The reference is common property and all common features as registered as a strata plan.
The case in this tread seems to concentrate on “positive” change – enhancement and then apply it to all
PS I still know nothing about law but like all I have a strong opinion.