- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 1 week ago by .
In a decision handed down yesterday, SC 21/48504, NCAT declined to invalidate a fact of the animal by-law.
The by-law says: no dogs or cats, other than assistance animals as prescribed by legislation, shall be allowed upon any lot or the common property;
Seems it is OK to keep such a by-law on the books.
The Tribunal found:
9. The above section 137B invalidates any existing “blanket ban” in relation to keeping of animals as may presently exist within any strata scheme. It also places an onus upon neighbours or strata management to be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that actual unreasonable interference with other lot owners or users of common property has been caused by the keeping of a particular animal upon a lot.
10. Section 137B operates irrespective of any by-law. This does not however mean that the body corporate lacks power to make any particular relevant by-law and that the Tribunal should therefore make an order such as is presently sought. The section simply renders inoperative the application of any such by-law in relation to a particular animal in the absence of satisfactory evidence of unreasonable interference by that animal with neighbourhood amenity.
11. Accordingly, in the absence of the existence of an animal upon the applicant’s property and therefore the absence of any attempt by the management committee to impose an order for removal of any such animal,there is presently no basis for any orders to be made as sought within the present application.
I just can’t follow how the existence of an animal on the applicant’s property or an attempt by the management to remove an animal relates to the validity of the by-law.
Strange decision but it does mean feel free to have a no dogs by-law on your books.
- This topic was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.