- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
The EC had to make a very tough decision on a matter. An owner got hold of the ECs e-mails. One of them indicated that this owner has been told not to work on strata property as he is unlicensed and not insured, but continued to do this. The e-mail also indicated that the owner continues to push his bad habits onto new, unsuspecting residents and hence tampered with common property. From this tampering, the new owner will get a replacement of an item which will be quite expensive. Can the owner who has taken offence to the e-mails, just sue the writer of the e-mail or does he sue the whole EC that the e-mail was only intended for. By tampering with this common property to get a replacement rather than a repair, be considered fraud? Can the fact that he obtained e-mails not meant for him be used against him if he tries to pursue the matter?
-
Replies
-
My response to anyone in strata threatening to sue for libel when they are caught with their pants down is “bring it on.”
Having been close to a target of a law suit, where a rich owner tried to bully the EC and then sued selective members (in the vain hope that the EC’s insurance wouldn’t kick in) for an alleged libel – and lost more than $250,000 in costs when the action failed – I would just point out to the litigious owners that trying to prove a libel in strata is very hard.
For a start there is qualified privilege – i.e. you can say anything you like as long as it’s done in good faith, is relevant to the management of the building and is not done out of malice. It doesn’t even have to be true as long as you have good reason to believe that it is.
Possible defences include the truth, the fact that is was only circulated within a small group who had a vested interest in the matter (like the owners of the building) and that the owners’ right to know superseded the alleged victims desire to keep matters private.
In fact, you could argue that in not conveying the facts of a situation, the EC or individual members would have been derelict in their duties to the Owners Corp.
I would tell the person issuing the threats that if they do sue for libel, a general meeting will be held to discuss the issue with a view to getting Owners Corp approval to fund legal action (as the law requires), including the pursuit of costs.
People who threaten well-intentioned EC members with bogus legal actions (usually when their shortcomings are exposed) are slime and the lawyers who encourage them are parasites.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Thank you very much Jimmy! I will be able to sleep better now. Yes, the e-mail was done in good faith to keep strata costs down from people tampering with common property to get a full replacement/relevant to the management of the building/not intended as malice, but indeed the facts of the situation. Would the other owner he assisted be commiting fraud, as she knew that what he was doing would assist her to get the property replaced, rather than repaired? He actually was heard to say loudly (smartie) that he has done this before – he knows how to get strata to pay up!
If I am reading your note correctly it also sounds like this person is “repairing” or fixing common property and then submitting a bill for reimbursement. If this is the case and the work has not been pre- authorised by the Committee or Strata Manager then the Owners Corp is not obliged to reimburse. We had a couple of owners try that at our property a few years ago – engaged handymen for repairs they wanted to common property then sent the bills for $800 and $400 respectively to the EC. We rejected both invoices so they were out of pocket. Interestingly one shoddy repair by the handyman did not stand the test of time and the OC had to fix it about 2 years later. Lucky we did not reimburse that owner as we would have paid twice.
The owners involved have never carried out any more repair work themselves! Perhaps you should try that approach.
Sorry if I have misinterpreted the issue
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.