Dissenting owners in an ageing NSW strata scheme have failed in a court bid to derail a redevelopment plan, in a Land and Environment Court ruling that signals developers and owners corporations can push through renewal plans even when a minority of residents dig in hard.

According to a report in our sponsors Bannermans Lawyers monthly newsletter, a decision handed down earlier this month, saw the court approve a Strata Renewal Plan over the objections of three hold-out owners who raised a raft of challenges — from alleged conflicts of interest to claims the building should have been repaired rather than knocked down.

The court rejected them all.

What the dissenters argued

The objectors threw a lot at the wall. They claimed there was a conflict of interest between the owners corporation secretary and a representative of the developer. They questioned the adequacy of compensation being offered. They argued that a competing developer should have been considered. They said the building could be fixed rather than rebuilt. And they raised concerns about how meetings had been conducted.

The court was unimpressed. On the conflict-of-interest question, the judge found the relationship between the secretary and the developer amounted to nothing more than “limited professional familiarity” — not the kind of financial, emotional or business entanglement the Act contemplates as undermining good faith.

On compensation, the valuers’ evidence went unchallenged, and the court noted that hold-outs were being offered the same proportional payout as supporting owners — the only difference being their participation would be compelled by court order rather than voluntary agreement. That, the court said, was entirely what the Act envisages.

The late notice — and why it didn’t matter

In one of the more interesting procedural moments, the court acknowledged that a notice to the Registrar General had been filed seven days late. It declined to let that sink the plan. The notice’s purpose — alerting potential buyers to the existence of a supported renewal plan — had not been frustrated, no one had been misled, and the delay caused no substantial injustice. Even if it had amounted to a defect, the Act gives courts power to overlook minor technical breaches.

What about fixing instead of demolishing?

The dissenters argued the money would be better spent on repairs. The court acknowledged the buildings had significant maintenance needs — which had in fact been thoroughly investigated by the owners corporation — but said the choice between repair and redevelopment is one for the scheme to make, provided it clears the statutory hurdles. It had.

Similarly, claims that a competing developer should have been preferred got short shrift. The rival offer had been considered, the court found, but it was never a valid strata renewal proposal under the legislation, so there was no legal obligation to assess it formally.

What this means for apartment owners

The case, The Owners – Strata Plan 1998 v Perifa Gerrale Pty Ltd [2026], follows a 2025 precedent (The Owners-Strata Plan 934 v T&P Chimes Development Pty Ltd) and together the two decisions map out a clear framework: once an owners corporation has jumped through the legislative hoops in Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, courts are unlikely to let dissenters unwind the process on grounds that go beyond the specific matters listed in section 182.

That’s a significant message for hold-out owners in schemes facing renewal pressure. Unless compensation is genuinely inadequate, proper processes were not followed, or there’s actual evidence of bad faith in preparing the plan — not just the appearance of a connection between parties — the courts will approve.

For developers and the majorities of owners who support renewal, the message is equally clear: get the process right, document everything, and minor hiccups along the way are unlikely to be fatal.

The case was run by our sponsors Bannermans Lawyers, who represented the owners corporation.