I read the case quoted above. The applicant was a previous strata committee member. The respondent is a current strata committee member.
The applicant, himself, had done some questionable things. e.g. conduct a strata committee meeting at which he was the only attendee and approve a $20,000 retainer to a consulting firm.
The applicant had a long list of grievances without sufficient explanation for why they were out of order. One of his complaints: that the strata committee decided to terminate the services of abovementioned consulting firm.
The respondent was found to have breached a by-law by viewing some CCTV footage with another strata committee member, without first seeking the approval of the strata committee. Also, a strata lawyer invoiced the owners corp for legal advice given to the respondent.
However, Senior Member did not find a strong enough case to remove the respondent. He went through all of the respondent’s grievances, one by one. There was also a complaint about the respondent’s noisy dog. The applicant did not do himself a favour by piling on complaint after complaint.
It looks to me that we have two neighbours who seriously dislike each other. One of them got angry and went to NCAT to get vindication.