@JimmyT said:
Q2 – Can they limit your choice to use only their nominated removal company?
No – unless there a specific issues with the building that require skills that only the nominated company possesses. They could try to enforce it but any breach notice would probably be knocked over in NCAT as being unreasonably restrictive and may actually be a restraint of trade. A better by-law would allow for a hefty deposit before the move, and an inspection of common property before and after.
Sorry Jim, but I would have to disagree with you on that one.
It is well established that the doctrine of “restraint of trade” has no application to by-laws in a strata scheme: Hamlena Pty Ltd v Sydney Endoscopy Centre Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11,436 per Young J at 11,441-11442.
And there are other ways to enforce breach of a by-law. One other way is to apply for interim orders restraining a breach of a by-law, which could be granted if a lot owner/occupier has informed the owners corporation that he/she intends to breach a by-law and the by-law is in clear terms. Here is a reported story on that: https://www.stratalive.com.au/article/news/strata-news/2013/07/bylaws-prohibiting-onsite-auctions
If one then breaches an order of an adjudicator to comply with a by-law, then one could face fines up to $5,500 for non compliance with the order (as well as being liable for the owners corporation’s legal costs in the matter). Not sure if that is a path one wants to go down.
Q3 – Can additional by-laws apply to me given I am an existing tenant?
Yes, but they can’t be retrospective. For instance, a by-law banning pets can’t be enforced on pets already in the building because that relates to an action that has already happened (bringing in a pet). However, they could bring in a by-law to take action against barking dogs because that relates to actions in the future that could be prevented.
That really depends on the terms of the by-law. But I will say that your last sentence is contradictory to the one before it. There is no reason why the very act of keeping a pet couldn’t be one that “relates to actions in the future that could be prevented”. This is because, if a pet is removed from the parcel then the act is “prevented” as it is no longer “kept” on the parcel.
In short, yes, a by-law can be made to have a retrospective effect to prohibit pets being kept on the parcel. Its practical effect is probably harsh, but that is the reality of the legislation which specifically envisages an owners corporation passing a by-law to prohibit animals being kept on the parcel. One would hope that members of the owners corporation have at least a little humanity within them to not pass such a by-law.