Daley v The Owners – Strata Plan 2754

1. Mr Daley, a lot owner in a residential building in Sydney, appeals against a decision made by the Tribunal on 26 June 2025, in which his claim for orders relating to the supply of documents kept by the owners corporation (the OC) of that building was dismissed. The appeal raises issues concerning whether an OC, in the circumstances of this case, by providing an owner with a link to all the documents and records kept by it electronically, complies with the OC's obligations under Div 2 of Pt 10 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the SSMA), in particular s 182 and s 183.
2. The appeal was brought within time. It was heard by us on 11 December 2025 when both parties made oral submissions in support of written submissions, previously filed. At the conclusion of the hearing we reserved our decision.
3. For the reasons set out below we have decided that the appeal should succeed. Mr Daley's application for orders concerning the supply of documents to him must be redetermined by the Tribunal.

1. Under s 80 (2) (b), Mr Daley has a right of appeal on any question of law. Otherwise, he requires leave (permission) to appeal.
2. Because of the decision we have arrived at, as explained below, it is unnecessary for us to consider Mr Daley's application for leave to appeal in which he sought to meet the requirements for leave to appeal from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal, as set out in cl 12 of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act).
3. In Unique Commercial Group Pty Ltd v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204 at [25] the Appeal Panel addressed the requirements concerning the need to establish that an appeal raises a question of law. We have applied those requirements in respect of this appeal. In particular, we note the Appeal Panel's reference to the fact that in many cases involving an unrepresented litigant the Appeal Panel itself has considered whether a question of law is raised from the materials and submissions presented on the appeal. That is what has occurred in this case.

182 Requests for inspection of records of owners corporation

(1) Persons who may inspect An owner ... of a lot in a strata scheme, or a person authorised by the owner, ... may request the owners corporation to allow an inspection to be carried out under this section.

(2) Form of request The request must be made by written notice given to the owners corporation and be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Items to be made available for inspection The owners corporation must make the following items available for inspection by the person who makes the request or the person's agent -

(a) the strata roll,

(b) any other records or documents required to be kept under this Part,

(c) the plans, specifications, certificates, diagrams and other documents required to be delivered to the owners corporation before its first annual general meeting by the original owner or the lessor of a leasehold strata scheme,

(d) (Repealed)

(e) any applicable 10-year capital works fund plan,

(f) the last financial statements prepared,

(g) every current policy of insurance taken out by the owners corporation and the receipt for the premium last paid for each such policy,

(h) if a strata managing agent has been appointed, a copy of the instrument of appointment,

(i) if a strata renewal plan has been given to owners for their consideration under Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, a copy of the plan,

(j) any other record or document in the custody or under the control of the owners corporation,

(k) if the duties of the owners corporation under this subsection have been delegated to a strata managing agent, any other records (including records of the strata managing agent) relating to the strata scheme that are prescribed by the regulations,

(l) if a building manager agreement is in force or has been entered into but has not yet commenced, a copy of the building manager agreement,

(m) particulars of any service agreement entered into by the owners corporation,

(n) particulars of any agreement entered into with a local council for a strata parking area,

(o) if the request is made within 5 years after the end of the initial period, particulars of any orders made under section 27 and copies of any related contracts or other documents.

Maximum penalty - 5 penalty units.

....

1. Section 183 provides:

183 Inspection of owners corporation documents

(1) An inspection under this Division is to take place at the time and place, or by the means, agreed on and, failing agreement, at the parcel at a time and on a date, or by the means, fixed by the owners corporation under this section.

(2) If an applicant and the owners corporation fail to reach an agreement within 3 days after the owners corporation receives the application, the owners corporation must immediately give the applicant a written notice fixing a specified time (between 9 am and 8 pm) on a specified date (not later than 10 days after the owners corporation receives the application), or a specified means, for the inspection to take place.

(3) The means for inspecting documents may be in person or through secure electronic access to the documents or any other means agreed on or fixed under this section.

(3A) The regulations may prescribe the maximum fee that may be charged for inspecting documents -

(a) in person, or

(b) through secure electronic access to the documents, or

(c) by another means agreed on or fixed under this section.

(4) A person entitled to inspect a document may take extracts from, or make a copy of, the document but must not, without the consent of the owners corporation, remove the document from the custody of the owners corporation.

1. Division 3 of Part 10 of the SSMA, "Orders about strata roll and records" contains s 187 and 188, the latter of which relevantly provides:

188 Order to supply information or documents

(1) The Tribunal may, on application by a person, order an owners corporation, strata managing agent, officer or former strata managing agent of an owners corporation to supply to the applicant information that the Tribunal considers that the owners corporation, strata managing agent, officer or former strata managing agent has wrongfully withheld from the applicant and to which the applicant is entitled under this Act.

(2) The Tribunal may, on application by a person, order an owners corporation, strata managing agent, officer or former strata managing agent of an owners corporation to supply or make available to the applicant a record or document if -

(a) the Tribunal considers that the owners corporation, strata managing agent, officer or former strata managing agent has wrongfully failed to make the record or document available for inspection by the applicant or the applicant's agent, and

(b) the applicant is entitled under this Act to inspect the record or document.

(3) The order may specify the manner in which information is to be supplied or made available.

The owners application to the Tribunal - Mr Daley's case.

1. Mr Daley's application to the Tribunal lodged on 11 February 2025 specified that he sought orders under s 188 of the SSMA. The application made it sufficiently clear that he sought orders for the supply or making available to him of listed documents, as provided for in s 188 (2).
2. Given the terms of s 188 (2), and the matters set out in his application, it was clear enough that a significant question raised by his application was whether the OC had "wrongfully failed to make the record or document available for inspection by the applicant".
3. As to this, in the section of his application concerning "what orders do you want?", the following was set out:

Orders relating to Section 188 of the Act

An order from the Tribunal that the owners corporation provide for inspection the listed items (attached) from the records of the 2754 strata plan within 10 days.

With reference to Section 188 (3) "the order may specify the manner in which the information is to be supplied or made available".

3.1

An order that specifies that the documents requested be provided for copying and that "inspection" of the documents does not require a " search" of the record files or library by the applicant.

or

3.2

Preferably, an order that the requested documents be electronically sent to a nominated lawyer or industry professional to verify that the documents are as requested.

or

3.3

That the documents are placed in an envelope by Mr Bonnici, sealed, collected by the applicant and taken for verification by another industry professional.

See below re-explanation for this request. Below A

That the tribunal determine any fees for the above. See below B

1. The additional reference in the orders set out under 3.1 above to "and that "inspection" of the documents does not require a "search" of the record files or library by the applicant", albeit misconceived as making up the content of an order, foreshadowed an important aspect of Mr Daley's case, as expanded upon later in his application.
2. Before we address this aspect of his application, it is useful to set out the documents sought by Mr Daley that he listed in his application, namely:

Strata Roll

2.1 Instrument of employment for David Bonnici (BCS Strata) as a strata managing agent 2020

2.2 Ditto 2023

Note: Documents should satisfy Section 49 (2) and 50 (2) of the Act. i.e. the appointment is to be made by instrument in writing and authorised by a resolution (majority vote) at a general meeting of the owners corporation.

The meeting to satisfy the definition would be a General Meeting not an AGM.

3.1 The appointment of David Bonnici re delegated functions in 2020

3.2 Appointment ditto 2023

Note: Section 52 ( 4 ) An owners corporation may delegate the functions only if authorised to do so by a resolution at a general meeting.

4.1 Copies of invoices from Madison Marcus Law Firm ( David Napoli lawyer representing ) re legal fees for Peta Lucas

4.2 Ditto re David Bonnici

4.3 Copy of relevant receipts re payment of above.

4.4 Copies of correspondence re above between Peta Lucas, David Bonnici and David Napoli.

5. Copies of any general meeting Notices / Minutes ( not AGM's ) 2025 -2018

6.1

AGM 2024 Minutes Item 14 Special by-law no xx - 'minor renovations' which states : . . . ..to change the by laws by the addition of special by-law no xx - minor renovations copy of which is attached.

Require a 'copy' of above as it was not 'attached' on receipt.

Note: remediation work was to address water ingress into my property.

... ( strata secretary ), David Bonnici ( strata managing agent ) refused all requests for documentation.

As the work involved water proofing maybe this is a major, not minor renovation?

6.2

Copy of any correspondence between David Bonnici and Peta Lucas about the above by-law issue.

6.3

Builders quotes for work

The date of the last independent audit of financial records.

Honorariums listed in the administrative fund accounts according to David Bonnici.

Require list of name(s) , payments , dates. 2020 to 2024

Email dated 14/8/23 from David Bonnici to Grahame Daley stated,

'.....the committee has advised which has been relayed to you via the attached email.....

Require a copy of the attached email ( as it wasn't attached )

A copy of the 'Strata Management Agency Agreement' post 2024 AGM if updated from June 2023 document

Note: several requests re updates ( or not) ignored

11

Insurance Policies for SP2754 AGM 2024

Note: Page 7 of AGM (2024) minutes sent to owners corporation state that a full copy of the current insurance policies are available upon request through the strata manager ( David Bonnici )

These have been requested several times without a response.

1. Most of the items listed were specific and confined in their scope. Plainly, the various comments and questions asked were unnecessary and irrelevant.
2. Returning to the important aspect of Mr Daley's case that we have referred to, in his application to the Tribunal, the owner said he had been requesting access to "the strata roll" and other information since 30 July 2023. He said he had been told by the strata manager that he was:

...entitled to inspect the strata books and records. For assistance with this, it is recommended that you engage the services of a strata searcher, who can obtain the results you seek.

He continued along these lines for about 10 months.

Strata Searches in Sydney cost $300 up. The Act says dollars 30, 10 days

1. He went on to say that he was not prepared to pay the costs for a strata searcher and initiated proceedings in the Tribunal (the 2024 application).
2. The application explained that the strata manager responded to the 2024 application in an email dated 14 May 2024:

You do not need to engage a professional strata searcher to perform a strata search. I only suggested this as a way of ensuring that the information is obtained in the most efficient manner. Any owner can perform a search of the strata schemes books and records upon payment of the prescribed fee. Access to the books and records is completed electronically via a link. Please advise if you wish to complete a search and I will have someone email you to initiate the process.

1. This offer resulted in the owner withdrawing the 2024 application to the Tribunal and proceeding to electronically access the records of the OC in pursuit of the documents he wanted. His application stated:

After THE NCAT hearing In June 2024 1 was able to ' search ' the records despite requesting that the required documents be presented for inspection.

The password I was given had been or was corrupted, it took 3 days and 4 different office staff to gain access.

The records were a mess.

My correspondence was all over the place or missing, some of it was in the folders of other Lots. Despite using the 'search' and 'the special search' functions and trying various combinations of possible key Indicators 'Strata Roll' couldn't be found.

I suggest that this was deliberate and premeditated, based on the time that has elapsed ( since July 2023 ), the number of requests (a dozen and a half) and the frivolous and superficial explanations.

I paid the fee for the June 2024 search.

I did not get the information I was looking for.

...

Strata managing agent David Bonnici and his lawyer basically said, bad luck, start again. The secretary of the owners corporation remained 'invisible' throughout.

1. In a short account in the section of the application concerning "Why are you applying to NCAT", the following was stated:

The secretary of the owner corporation, Peta Lucas and the strata managing agent David Bonnici and his principal Charles Guthrie have obstructed, through various nefarious means, access to strata records contrary to Sections 182, 183 of the Act

1. Although we were not supplied with the transcript of the hearing in the primary proceedings or with all of the written evidentiary material and submissions provided in those proceedings, it does appear from the written material supplied on the appeal that a considerable focus of Mr Daley's case was upon allegations of what we can characterize as bad faith or deliberate obstruction in the provision of the documents requested. It was, of course, unnecessary for him to rely upon such allegations in order to succeed in his application for relevant orders for the supply of documents.
2. Leaving aside such allegations of bad faith or deliberate obstruction, it was sufficiently apparent that a significant issue had been raised by him as to whether the condition for the making of a relevant order of supply of documents under s188 (2) had been satisfied, namely that the owners corporation or strata managing agent had "wrongfully failed to make the record or document available for inspection" given alleged deficiencies and inadequacies in the electronic search means that was provided to Mr Daley.
3. The OC's defence to Mr Daley's case was a short and simple one, namely, in substance, that access to the documents had been provided through the link supplied to the electronically stored documents. As to this, the respondent relied upon a short written statement from Mr Bonnici dated 24 April 2025. Written submissions from the respondent also relied upon the suggestion that a strata searcher be obtained to assist Mr Daley and upon the correspondence with Mr Daley stating that access to the books and records is completed electronically via a link. It was also contended that there was no provision in the SSMA that required an owners corporation to supply documents to an owner on request and that at no stage had the respondent wrongfully failed to make a record or document available for inspection.
4. On appeal, the respondent did not suggest that it had presented any evidence in the primary proceedings contradicting Mr Daley's evidence about the nature of the records being "in a mess" and about the inability Mr Daley had experienced in trying to find documents through the electronic search mechanism. The respondent's defence appears to have been, in essence, that it was up to Mr Daley to overcome these problems and that in order to meet its responsibilities it was sufficient for the OC to provide the link to the electronically stored documents, regardless of the state they were in for the purpose of navigating to the documents sought.

1. Written reasons for decision were given by the Tribunal.
2. The decision first noted, in [1], the orders sought by the owner.
3. The Tribunal then quoted, as we have done, ss 182, 183 and 188 of the SSMA.
4. The Tribunal noted that both parties had attended the hearing and that it had received sworn evidence from the OC's strata managing agent, Mr Bonnici, who had also provided a statement dated 24 April 2025. The decision continued:

4. The issue for determination is whether, as the applicant argues, the strata scheme by its agent, has wrongfully withheld from the applicant information (SSMA, s 188(1)), or has not supplied or made available to the applicant (SSMA, s 188(2)) a record or document (as to the various categories of record or document, see SSMA, subsection 182(3)(a) - (o)), which the Owners Corporation is required to make available for inspection upon request by a Lot owner.

5. I accept the evidence of Mr Bonnici. In doing so, I find that none of the circumstances exist warranting the Tribunal to make orders under s 188 of the SSMA.

6. Further, I find that there is no power in the Tribunal under the SSMA or other enabling legislation, to require an Owners Corporation to supply documents to a Lot owner on request whether pursuant to s 182, s 183, or s 188 of the SSMA or otherwise. The Tribunal cannot make any of the orders sought as per 1(i) to 1(iii) above. It has no authority to do so.

7. Pertinently, that the applicant could not find a particular document or record or other information while having access, does not mean that documents, records, or information were "wrongfully withheld" by the Owners Corporation, or that the Owners Corporation, in some way, "failed to make the record or document available for inspection". In answering various questions put to him in cross-examination by the applicant, Mr Bonnici said that the Owners Corporation cannot be responsible for the efficiency or the thoroughness with which a Lot owner undertakes the task, whether that is by the Lot owner himself/herself, or whether that is by the Lot owner with the assistance of a professional strata records searcher. That is undoubtedly so.

8. Nor is there any evidence to support the proposition that the Owners Corporation has not enabled the "means" of inspection, as required in s 183(3) of the SSMA.

9. For those reasons, the applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that any order should be made under s 188 of the SSMA for documents, records or information to be provided to the applicant. Therefore, his application for orders of the Tribunal must be dismissed.

1. In his notice of appeal, Mr Daley did not articulate any questions of law, other than a suggestion of procedural unfairness on the basis that it was said the bulk of the evidence that Mr Daley had sought to use in the primary proceedings was ruled inadmissible. This is unsurprising given his lack of legal training.
2. Mr Daley's grounds of appeal and written submissions were not easy to follow but made reference, in a very general way, to error by the Tribunal in not following the law concerning the requirement to make available and facilitate an owner's inspection of documents kept by the owners corporation. To a considerable extent, in his written material, Mr Daley focused upon unnecessary contentions concerning obstruction to his access to documents.
3. Nevertheless, it seemed to us that a significant point arose from his complaints, namely that the Tribunal had not addressed the substance of the case that he had sufficiently and seriously advanced, namely that despite the provision of the link to the electronically stored books and records, given the nature of those records and the link provided, there had, nevertheless, in the events that had occurred, been a failure to "make [the items requested] available for inspection", as required by s 182 (3).
4. We raised this question and related points with the parties during the hearing and heard their respective submissions.
5. A contention that the Tribunal failed to address such a case raises a question of law: see, for example, Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Forbidden Foods Pty Limited [2020] NSWCATAP 182 at [170]- [175]; Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26 at [24]; 77 ALJR 1088; Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165 at [8]- [12].

Consideration-failure to address an important aspect of Mr Daley's case

1. With the commencement of the SSMA in 2015, amendments were made to enable the items specified in s 182(3) to be inspected "through secure electronic access to the documents" or by means agreed on or fixed (see s 183(3)). A person entitled to inspect "a document" may take extracts from, or make a copy of it, but may not take it away: (s 183(4)).
2. This OC's managing agent responded to the owner's request for inspection of various documents by arranging for him to have online access to inspect the books and records of the OC. The state and nature of the electronic storage, including how those books and records are organized, whether in a database, in proprietary strata management software, or simply as a collection of digital files and folders, was not the subject of any findings by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal did not address Mr Daley's complaints about the alleged "mess" that they were in and his inability to find documents, including, for example, the Strata Roll.
3. The Tribunal did not turn its attention to these complaints and ask itself whether the OC, by granting the owner secure access to its records, had met the requirement to make the documents "available for inspection".
4. As to this, the Macquarie Online Dictionary definition of "available", includes:

1. suitable or ready for use; at hand; of use or service.

1. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines "available" to include:

1 capable of being used; at one's disposal. 2 obtainable; within one's reach

1. In the circumstances of this case, a real question arose as to whether the books and records sought were, in fact, made "available" for inspection. For example, if the quantity of the documents electronically stored was large, poorly arranged and the description of files and folders general or otherwise unclear, it is difficult to see how the provision of only a link to such documents would meet the requirement of s 182 (3) in the absence of some clear and reasonably specific guidance as to where and how the documents sought were to be located.
2. An analogy can be drawn with respect to the keeping of documents in hard, physical form. If the documents were of a large quantity and kept in boxes in storage in a locked room without any guidance as to where specific documents sought might be found, it is difficult to see how the provision to a lot owner of a key to a locked room in which the documents were stored would satisfy the "available" for inspection requirement.
3. Section 183(3) provides that the "means for inspecting documents" may be "through secure electronic access to the documents". The access required is to the "documents" or "items" not to the "books and records" of the OC.
4. The Macquarie Dictionary Online offers the following relevant definitions of "means":

Means

...

plural noun 1. (often construed as singular) an agency, instrumentality, method, etc., used to attain an end: a means of communication.

1. The relevant end in question here is to "make the following items available for inspection..." (s 182 (3)).
2. The problem here could well be that in conjunction with the state and nature of the electronic storage, provision of a link only is insufficient to meet the obligation under s 182 (3).
3. It seems to us that the answer to the issue raised will depend on a variety of circumstances including, amongst others, the nature of the storage system and software, whether links are provided to required documents, whether they can otherwise be easily viewed or located, the nature of the user interface, and its availability and accessibility to a person who is not an expert strata searcher.
4. On appeal, we did not understand the respondent to advance an argument that the available for inspection obligation had been met by the provision of a link because Mr Daley could obtain the services of an expert strata searcher to assist with the search. In any event, we do not agree with any such contention. The requirement in s 182 (3) is to make the items available for inspection "by the person who makes the request or the person's agent". We do not think it would fall within the intention of the provisions that a lot owner be required to engage, at the lot owner's expense, an expert as part of this legislative scheme for access to strata records.
5. Finally, it seemed to us that some submissions from the OC suggested that the use of the word "wrongfully" required intent to deprive the lot owner of access to the documents on behalf of the OC. We do not accept that proposition. Read in the context of the purpose and objects of the SSMA, "wrongfully" in s 188 means unlawfully, which includes failing to make a document available for inspection as required by the Act.
6. Accordingly, Mr Daley's allegations that there was an intentional or deliberate withholding of access to the documents he sought and that he was obstructed in obtaining access by "nefarious" means should not form part of the required redetermination of his application.

1. For the above reasons, the order to dismiss Mr Daley's application must be set aside. His application must be redetermined, excluding his allegations that there was an intentional or deliberate withholding of access to the documents he sought.
2. It does appear that there may well be scope for additional evidence to be adduced about the state and nature of the electronic storage and about Mr Daley's contentions that it was a "mess" and that documents were not able to be located. This may well include further evidence from both Mr Daley and Mr Bonnici. The Tribunal Senior Member in the primary proceedings made a favourable finding in relation to the credit of Mr Bonnici. For this reason alone, we consider that the better course is for the remitted proceedings to be redetermined by a differently constituted Tribunal.
3. Accordingly, the Appeal Panel makes the following orders:

(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Set aside Order 1 made by the Tribunal on 25 June 2025 dismissing the appellant's application.

(3) Remit the application for redetermination by a differently constituted Tribunal, except for the appellant's allegations that there was an intentional or deliberate withholding of access to the documents he sought.

(4) The redetermination will be in accordance with the rules and directions of the Tribunal, including such directions as the Tribunal may make concerning the presentation of new evidence by the parties.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.