teamwalrus – Sect 140 is irrelevant in my opinion, as it relates to situations where a Lot Owner has sought the Owners Corporation’s (O/C) consent to alter and/or repair Common Property either before or after doing the works, and that consent has been unreasonably refused. It also includes the additionally subjective proviso of the works needing to directly affect the Owners’ Lot.
Whilst I agree that an O/C, when faced with a maintenance / repair / replacement issue involving un-consented changes / additions to its Common Property, cannot simply do nothing, the consequence is that it’s then placed in a position of expending funds to do something when that could fairly easily be avoided.
That means of avoidance is vigilance by the O/C, or a relevant Special By-Law such the one that I suggested earlier, which incidentally is how the staircase matter referred to in Jimmy’s post (#12) was resolved; I can’t help wondering what the outcome would have been otherwise.
You refer to the (hypothetical?) example mentioned in your first post, where it’s clear now that your O/C must do something about the TV Aerial with which the current Owners have had no involvement. That in my “black or white” opinion should be to remove it, and if by some chance the Lot doesn’t then have adequate television reception via the means put in place at the time of construction, then any cabling that’s within the internal walls of the Lot is the Owner’s responsibility and anything else is the O/C’s responsibility.