@JimmyT said:
No, it isn’t arguable. Section 49, to which you refer, doesn’t even prevent owners corps from passing by-laws preventing the lease of apartments as short-term lets
https://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/ncat/m771022l14/annual_report_1112.pdf
Look at page 37
“A high-rise apartment building leasehold scheme located in Sydney’s Darling Harbour was managed by a large hotel group for some time, and a number of lot owners had made their apartments available for short-term holiday leases through the hotel group. This situation changed when the hotel group vacated the building and an extraordinary general meeting of the owners voted to adopt a special by-law to prevent short-term leases and serviced apartments. The special by-law prohibited the use of lots for commercial or retail purposes, including the use of lots as serviced apartments or short-term rentals.
A lot owner made an application for Adjudicator orders to repeal or invalidate the special by-law under section 157 or 159 of the Act, so that they could continue to lease their apartment to tourists and visitors.
The owners corporation’s written submission stated that the use of serviced apartments and short-term leases created security, health and safety issues as well as adversely affecting the general amenity of the building.
Section 159 of the Act allows an Adjudicator to set aside a by-law if the owners’ corporation did not have the power to make the bylaw. However, section 49 of the Act also provides that a by-law cannot prevent any dealings relating to a lot.
The Adjudicator considered that the new special by-law led to restrictions that were not compatible with section 49, and was therefore outside the by-law making power of the owners corporation pursuant to section 159 of the Act…”
Not arguable? Or, would this be considered “scratching your amateur attorney itch”?