For what it is worth, I have had generally good impressions of the ACT’s equivalent, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I have been involved in 7 matters, on each occasion as an EC member. I have generally been impressed with the way the tribunal member conducted the mediation and/or hearing. On two of those occasions we were represented by a solicitor because the matter was sufficiently serious that we had to get it right. Only on the most minor matter was I unimpressed with the tribunal member. Ironically, he was the most senior ACAT member we encountered.
The matter was very straightforward. A unit owner had erected a fence that enclosed an area of common property. It was understandable that the owner had thought that it was part of the unit area but the unit plan showed unequivocally that it was not. We had decided to deal with all three instances of unit owners enclosing common property at the same time in the same way. The other two units were, by chance, about to change hands and these were resolved when the new owners removed the unapproved fences, having been made aware of the situation while they were purchasing. The third owner was not selling at that time and dug in his heels. The ‘breach of rules’, properly notified, therefore became, automatically, an ‘ACAT dispute’.
The ACAT member did not appear to have read our application and asked why the EC could not just compromise and let the unit owner keep the fence and the enclosed bit of common property. I was astonished to have to explain that the Act says that gaining exclusive use of an area of common property is generally a ‘special privilege’ and that requires an unopposed resolution of a general meeting. [There is an exception in the ACT legislation whereby the EC can grant a ‘minor’ use, subject to various conditions, but the EC had decided that those conditions would not be met in this instance.]
Aside from that example, the ACAT members have been diligent, shrewd and very fair in my experience.