In written reasons published over two and a half years after the original oral reasons were delivered, the State Administrative Tribunal (โSATโ) has held that the use of the term “๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ” to describe lower horizontal part-lot boundaries on a strata plan is otiose.
In ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐๐ต๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฐ ๐๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ 51326 [2021] WASAT 170,[1] the horizontal boundaries of the part-lot balcony areas were defined on the strata plan as extending “๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ”.
The owners of one of the strata lots commenced proceedings against the strata company, seeking a declaration that the boundary of their part-lot balcony was the upper surface of the tiled floor, rather than (as suggested by the plain wording of the strata plan) the upper surface of the concrete slab.
Because the ๐๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐๐ช๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐๐ค๐ต 1985 (WA) (โStrata Titles Actโ) limits the manner in which the cubic space boundaries of a strata lot can be defined on a strata plan (i.e. only “๐ฃ๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข ๐ธ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ, ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ … ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ถ๐ฃ๐ช๐ค ๐ด๐ฑ๐ข๐ค๐ฆ”),[2] the SAT held (correctly in our view) that the use of the term “๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ” was to be disregarded.
The SAT then applied ๐๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ช๐ค ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ 48545[3] in deciding that, because the tiles on the balcony had been affixed when the strata plan was originally registered, the boundary of the owners’ part-lot balcony area was the upper surface of the tiles.
The practical effect of the decision was that the strata company, and not the lot owners, was responsible for the balcony tiles (including any underlying waterproof membrane).
Conclusion
This case is an example of why the delineation of lot and common property boundaries in a strata scheme can have important consequences, especially where there is a need for expensive repairs and maintenance.
In light of this decision,ย Landgateย should revise its guidance in ๐๐๐-02 ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ด, which currently states that “๐ช๐ง ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ง๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฉ๐ช๐ฑ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ช-๐ต๐ช๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฆ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 3(2)(๐ข) ๐ฐ๐ณ 3(2)(๐ฃ), ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐บ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ถ๐จ๐จ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ.”
If you need advice in relation to a strata scheme boundary issue, please contact our firm principal, Shannon Davies.
Disclaimer
This post has been prepared as a general summary only. It is not, and is not intended to be, legal advice with respect to any particular matter. This post should not be relied on with respect to any particular matter without taking legal advice. Stork Davies Legal Advisors disclaims liability to any person who relies on this post without taking legal advice from the firm.
[1] ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐๐ต๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฐ ๐๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ 51326 [2021] WASAT 170.
[2] See s. 3(2) of the Strata Titles Act and r. 6 Strata Titles (General) Regulations 2019 (WA).
[3] ๐๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ช๐ค ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ธ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ 48545 [2016] WASAT 27. The SATโs decision in Topic has been followed consistently, including in The Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 and Mangles SMSF Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 101 and Jarvis and The Owners of Horizon Apartments on Central Strata Plan 53941 [2023] WASAT 117. In the context of a strata scheme registered under the now-repealed Strata Titles Act 1966 (WA), see Venables and Owners of Cambridge Court Strata Plan 4879 [2012] WASAT 7.