This is interesting:
Particularly the last paragraph.
Conclusion
At first glance the decision seemed to absolve the Owners from providing a lot owner with an upgrade that was required to service their lot(s) properly. However, under closer scrutiny the case was more in the nature of a dispute between an owners corporation and a lot owner trying to have the owners corporation bear the costs associated with providing services required as part of changes in their lot(s) to their benefit. Whilst the relevance of the case (like many) will depend on the specific facts, it does provide some useful guidance for owners corporations as to how the courts are likely to deal with such issues in the future.