1. Polybutylene water piping is cheap, flexible and corrosion-resistant. However, it also has a high failure rate, leading to class-action lawsuits overseas, and an associated decline in its manufacture and use. In 2005, it was banned in Canada. In 2023, it was the subject of a warning notice to homeowners issued by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (WA).
2. The Apartments were built about 20 years ago, and installed with polybutylene piping. The applicants own one of the units. For many years, both the applicants and other apartment owners have suffered burst and leaking pipes. The applicants now seek an order that the body corporate reimburse them for the costs they have incurred since 2015 to repair the pipework. The respondent body corporate submits that the applicants' claim should be refused because it is out of time.
3. On 3 December 2025 the Tribunal heard this matter. Ms Dobson of Elders Real Estate, the applicants' property manager, appeared on behalf of the applicants. Ms Turnbull, the second applicant, who lives interstate, attended by videolink. Ms Tanti of Castle Real Estate, the respondent's body corporate manager, appeared on behalf of the respondent. Mr Dobbie, the chairman of the respondent body corporate, attended. As none of the parties was legally represented, the Tribunal conducted the hearing with a minimum of formality.
4. At the hearing, the parties agreed that a body corporate bears responsibility for maintaining and repairing an apartment building's water piping, including the part of the piping system that supplies water to an individual unit.[1] On at least two previous occasions, other Serenity Apartments unit holders have applied to the Tribunal to resolve similar disputes with the respondent. In each of these matters, the body corporate was ordered to pay the costs of repair.
5. The parties also agreed that the applicants paid $7,283.26 for work to repair pipes and associated fittings that failed in November 2015, October 2018, April 2021 and June 2022. That is the amount the applicants now seek, plus the filing fee of $490 they paid to the Tribunal to commence these proceedings.
6. In October 2023, the applicants paid a further $9,629.21 to replace all of the polybutylene piping in their unit, but they have not asked the body corporate to reimburse them for those costs, and the Tribunal makes no order about this.
7. The Tribunal proceeds on the agreed basis that the statutory limitation period for a claim of this type is 3 years.[2] Most of the applicants' claim arises from costs they incurred more than 3 years before 19 June 2025, when they commenced these proceedings. The respondent initially sought to rely on provisions of the Limitation Act 1981 (NT) (the Limitation Act) that forbid the grant of an extension of time for certain types of claim,[3] but at the hearing the respondent effectively conceded that these provisions, which apply to claims regarding money paid by way of a "tax, fee, charge or other statutory impost", are not engaged in the circumstances of this dispute.
8. Section 44 of the Limitation Act confers power on the Tribunal to extend time for a claim, beyond the expiry of the limitation period.
9. A precondition for the Tribunal to grant an extension of time is that an applicant must include in their claim a statement to the effect that they seek an extension of time.[4] I am satisfied that by stating in their Initiating Application that "three of the four incidents occurred more than three years prior to the 2025 claim", the applicants complied with this requirement. In reaching this view I took into account that the Tribunal, which is designed to be accessible to non-lawyers, is required to act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of the matter permits.[5]
10. In considering whether to extend time, I make the following findings:
    1. On 20 January 2025, Ms Tanti sent Ms Turnbull a copy of the Tribunal's decision in Nichols v The Proprietors - Units Plan No, 97/86 [2021] NTCAT 14, and advised that "I am confident in advising that if the owner [of another Serenity Apartments unit] wishes to pursue this [similar claim] further with NTCAT, they are very likely going to win based on precedent."
    2. Until receiving this advice, the applicants had believed that each unit holder was responsible for bearing the cost of repairing and maintaining pipework that supplied water to their individual unit.
    3. The basis for the applicants' belief was the prior representations that had been consistently made to them by the body corporate's previous property managers to the effect that the cost of repairing and maintaining pipework that supplied water to each individual unit was the responsibility of the unit holder and not the body corporate.
    4. The applicants, who reside interstate, have never lived in the Apartments, and were substantially reliant on advice from the property managers about these issues.
    5. Prior to 20 January 2025, the applicants' belief was both mistaken and reasonable.
11. In all the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it is just to grant the extension of time.[6]
12. For these reasons, I allow the applicant's claim and have ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the amount it has sought, plus the Tribunal's filing fee.

[1] In accordance with Nichols v The Proprietors - Units Plan No, 97/86 [2021] NTCAT 14

[2] Section 12, Limitation Act 1981 (NT)

[3] Sections 35D and 35E.

[4] Section 44(4)

[5] Section 53(2)(c), Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NT)

[6] Section 44(3)(b), Limitation Act