If you read between the lines on the Bannerman report, the original plaintiff had set out to get a finding against both the strata committee and the upstairs neighbour but then abandoned the case against the strata scheme and concentrated on what the respondent HAD done and not on what the committee hadn’t.
It seems logical to me that if you forget the history and what the committee has or hasn’t done, and focus on the upstairs neighbour, you could then legitimately ask why the strata scheme is paying their legal costs. When you involve the strata committee you are opening the door for them to hire lawyers.