#13413
Billen Ben
Flatchatter

    The Strata Schemes Management Regulations 2010 have 6 sets of model by-laws depending on the situation;

    Schedule 2 Model by-laws for residential strata schemes

    Schedule 3 Model by-laws for retirement villages schemes

    Schedule 4 Model by-laws for industrial schemes

    Schedule 5 Model by-laws for hotel/resort schemes

    Schedule 6 Model by-laws for commercial/retail schemes

    Schedule 7 Model by-laws for mixed use schemes

    The Schedule 2 by-laws are for residential strata schemes and by law 17 (not 16 as i misprinted in my earlier post) offers 3 options; A,B and C with C being the prohibitive, no pets, version.

    The model by-law you quote is option A (of A,B and C) from Schedule 3 which is for retirement villages and is also option A for by-law 17 for residential strata in Schedule 2.

    The whole Strata Schemes Management Regulations 2010 are here

    The case from the Queensland Supreme Court has references to High Court cases. As Simone states “The decision refers to two High Court cases – Swan Hill v Bradbury and Brunswick v Stewart which also discuss the validity of prohibitory by-laws. “

    It is the High Court content that is relevant regardless of what State one wants to wave it about in. The High Court cases were quite persuasive in the Queensland case.

    It seems the High Court feel by-laws should be regulatory and not prohibitory – hence i wonder about the model by-laws having prohibitive options.

    Are the model by-laws out of touch with the expectation of the High Court and so should the option be removed from the Regs?

    Should existing prohibitive pets by-laws be open to challenge given by-laws are to be regulatory and some SP have changed them from regulatory to be prohibitive — or originally adopted a prohibitive approach?