- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Suppose a resident of your building has been doing something verboten such as regularly parking his car in a visitor space. Several residents discuss this and one of them asks the committee to deal with it. The committee decides to monitor the situation for a week. A few pics are taken of the offending car. The committee then decides there are grounds for action. The manager is directed to write to the culprit requesting that s/he cease this practice and desist from it in future. Committee minutes are circulated recording the decision.
The culprit is outraged. I pay my taxes, this is a free country and no-one else was using that space. Withdraw the NTC and get the manager to apologise for the over-reaction or I’ll sue in defamation!
Is that plausible? We’re in Australia and so many politicians have benefited from harsh defamation laws that we’re stuck with them (both the politicians and the laws). But surely the committee and manager can administer the by-laws without risk.
-
Replies
-
Is that plausible?
Not really. Exchanges as part of running an apartment block carry considerable “qualified privilege” provided there is no malicious intent. See this case here where the plaintiff lost on appeal and ended up having to pay all the legal costs for both parties.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.