I’m not a lawyer either but I think what the Appeals Court judge was saying was that there are other avenues available to individual owners to force Owners Corporations to abide by the terms of Section 62 – from CTTT orders to the appointment of a strata manager to replace the Owners Corp – that there is ‘relief’ available without the need to pursue damages.
In a way, this places the responsibility for the upkeep of the building back where it ought to be … with individual owners or groups of owners. If we have allowed things to get so bad that we feel we are entitled to claim damages, then we have passed the point where we, individually or collectively, should have taken to options open to us.
This particular judge may not be familiar with the workings of the CTTT and how unpredictable its adjudications can be, let alone the sometimes poisoned chalice of an appointed strata manager, but the theory is sound: why have an elaborate and long-standing system for enforcing strata law if you just ignore it?
By the way, I’m not sure that the ruling doesn’t cover the situation you describe of loss of value due to failure to maintain and repair.
However, I wonder what this means to individual members of the EC, carrying large swathes of proxy votes, who have used their voting power to consistently and knowingly ignore Section 62 requirements. If i recall correctly, the judge didn’t say anything about not seeking damages against individuals.