Galliott v The Owners �e" Strata Plan No. 43251 [2026] NSWCATCD 27;

Foo v Frew [2023] NSWCATAP 303 at [21]- [23]

Ma v The Owners - Strata Plan No 65870 [2023] NSWCATCD 140

Maple v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 8950 [2021] NSWCATCD 108

Thoo v The Owners - Strata Plan No 50276 [2011] NSWSC 657

Westerweller v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 18484 [2022] NSWCATCD 203

Cathie Galliott, Susie Elelman, Jai Galliott, Michele Selwyn and William Doyle (Applicants)

The Owners - Strata Plan No. 43251 (First respondent)

1. This is an application under s 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the SSM Act) for the appointment of a compulsory strata managing agent to exercise the functions of the owners corporation of Strata Plan 43251.
2. The five applicants are owners and/or occupants of lots within the scheme. They therefore have standing to bring this application under s 227 of the SSM Act. They seek the appointment of a compulsory strata manager to the owners corporation for a variety of reasons, alleging:

Pursuant to s.237(3)(a) of the [SSM Act], the existing management of SP 43251 is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily in that:

1. the existing [strata managing agent] has failed to properly manage significant conflicts of interest;

2. the strata committee is divided and unable to appropriately manage urgent matters;

3. there is evidence of fraud and/or financial mismanagement with Police involvement;

4. committee resignations have left the role of Treasurer vacant and unable to be filled; and

5. There is systemic neglect of the duty to repair and maintain in order to reduce outgoings by a committee dominated by non-resident investors with a pecuniary interest in the same.

AND

Pursuant to s 237(3)(c) of the [SSM Act], the Owners Corporation has failed to perform one or more of its duties, including:

1, the duty to repair and maintain common property per s.106 of the [SSM Act];

2. the duty to enforce by-laws per s. 146 of the [SSM Act];

3. the duty to provide notice of strata committee meetings under s.4, P2, Schedule 2; and

4. the duty to keep a pecuniary interest disclosure book under s.18, P3 of Schedule 2.

1. The applicants say that these issues arise from dysfunction within the owners corporation, including inconsistent decision-making, failure to approve expenditure, and contradictory instructions to the existing strata manager.
2. The owners corporation is the first-named respondent to the application. It denies dysfunction and submits that the existing strata manager and the strata committee are addressing the issues raised by the applicants, to the extent they are valid concerns. It attributes the delay in addressing those issues to external factors associated with the complexity of the owners corporation's fire safety order compliance project.
3. The second-named respondent, Goldtex Pty Ltd, has taken no part in the proceeding. Further, no relief is sought against that company.
4. The matter proceeded to a two-day hearing, which was conducted in the usual manner. The parties lodged documentary evidence and called witnesses who were cross-examined at the hearing. They also had the opportunity to make submissions directly to the Tribunal and to respond to the submissions made by the other parties. The Tribunal is satisfied that each party had a reasonable opportunity to present its case and to respond to the cases made by the other parties.
5. For the reasons that now follow, the application to appoint a strata manager to the owners corporation is dismissed.

1. The following witnesses gave evidence at the hearing:

(1) Ms Heather Mahoney, who owns lots in the scheme;

(2) Mr William Doyle, who owns lots in the scheme and has occupied one of those lots for 20 years;

(3) Dr Jai Gallott, an academic who has occupied a lot in the scheme since July 2024 and serves as the attorney of the first-named applicant (Cathie Galliott), who is the owner of lots in the scheme;

(4) Ms Margaret McBride, whose superannuation fund owns lots in the scheme;

(5) Ms Victoria Sydun, who was friends with an occupant of the building in the late 1970's;

(6) Mr Ian Hamilton, a building manager for the scheme for a few years prior to 2005;

(7) Mr Warren Lambert, an electrician who provided electrical services at the building between the mid 1990's and around 2010 and did some further electrical work at the start of 2025;

(8) Mr Olly Houlton, a building surveyor with CMS Consulting, who was project manager of the fire safety order compliance project for the owners corporation between late 2021 and early 2025;

(1) Mr Paul Culbi, a licensed strata managing agent, and the chief governance officer/group licensee in charge at Jameson and Associates;

(2) Mr Nathan Frear, a licensed strata manager at Jameson, and the strata managing agent currently acting for the scheme; and

(3) Mr Phillip Thornburrow, a building manager with his own company, Sydney Property Care.

1. Goldtex did not adduce any evidence for the Tribunal to consider.
2. Some of the above witnesses (namely, Ms McBride, Ms Sidun, Mr Hamilton, Mr Lambert and Mr Houlton) gave evidence upon being summoned by the Tribunal at the request of the applicants. They gave their evidence orally to the Tribunal, viva voce, both in chief and under cross-examination by the owners corporation.
3. The applicants also read witness statements made by Ms Michelle Selwyn, Ms Susie Elelman AM and Ms Ashley Kelso as part of their evidence-in-chief. The owners corporation did not object to those statements or cross-examine those witnesses. Consequently, their evidence has been received without challenge.
4. Dr Galliott's statements attached a large number of unsworn statements and questionnaire responses that are said to have been made by other owners or occupants of the building, commenting on various issues in the building. Those unsworn statements and questionnaire responses are admissible in the Tribunal's flexible evidentiary framework; however, they attract limited weight as they are hearsay, lack any verification of authorship, and do not permit the Tribunal to assess the makers' credibility, reliability, or opportunity to observe the matters asserted. Most do not identify specific events with sufficient clarity, nor are the authors available for cross‑examination. As a result, while the Tribunal has considered these documents, they cannot be treated as probative evidence of the conduct alleged. Those statements and responses must therefore carry little (if any) weight in establishing the facts in issue.

1. Section 106(1) and (2) of the SSM Act imposes a statutory duty on an owners corporation to maintain and repair the scheme's common property. Under that section, the common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation must be properly maintained and kept in a state of good and serviceable repair, including by renewing or replacing any fixtures or fittings comprised in the common property.
2. As explained by Brereton J in Thoo v The Owners - Strata Plan No 50276 [2011] NSWSC 657, the duty to maintain and repair common property is strict and ongoing. A breach of section 106 does not depend on fault, delay, or intention. The Owners Corporation is in breach as soon as the common property is no longer in a state of good and serviceable repair.
3. Section 237(1) permits the Tribunal to appoint a person as strata managing agent, or require an owners corporation to appoint a strata managing agent, either on its own motion or on application by a person who has standing under subsection 237(8) to apply under the section, to exercise either all or some of the functions of an owners corporation.
4. Section 237(3) permits the Tribunal to appoint a compulsory strata manager if satisfied that:

(1) the management of the scheme is not functioning, or not functioning satisfactorily;

(2) the owners corporation has failed to comply with a requirement imposed on it by an order made under the SSM Act;

(3) the owners corporation has failed to perform one or more of its duties; or

(4) the owners corporation owes a judgment debt.

1. Section 237(2) permits the Tribunal, when making an order under the section, to order that the strata managing agent is to have and may exercise all or some of the functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or strata committee of the owners corporation.
2. Section 237(4) sets out the qualifications to be held by a person appointed under the section - who must (a) hold a strata managing agent's licence issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW); and (b) have consented in writing to the appointment.
3. Section 237(5) sets out that the strata managing agent appointed by or as a consequence of an order made by the Tribunal, is appointed on the terms and conditions specified in the order making or directing the appointment, including remuneration and the length of the appointment.
4. Section 237(7) provides that the order appointing a strata manager may be varied or revoked on application, and otherwise ends on the date specified in the order, which cannot exceed two years.
5. Section 237 is a discretionary remedy. The applicants bear the onus of proving that one or more of the grounds specified in section 237(3) are made out on the balance of probabilities. It is then a matter for the Tribunal to determine, within its discretion, whether it is appropriate to appoint a strata manager in the circumstances established by the evidence before it.
6. As noted in De Beck v The Owners - Strata Plan No 30468 [2024] NSWCATCD 11 at [56]:

It is well settled that the appointment of a compulsory strata manager is a serious step. The remedy has been described as "draconian": see Mortlock v Owners of Strata Plan No 55434 [2006] NSWSC 363 at [18]. Appointment of a compulsory strata managing agent removes lot owner democracy that is built into the SSMA: see Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 61618 [2022] NSWSC 1246 at [150] and [173].

1. As identified by the Appeal Panel in Bischoff v Sahade [2015] NSWCATAP 135 at [112]- [122], the SSM Act does not specify particular matters that are to be considered by the Tribunal in deciding whether the management of the strata scheme is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily. The manner in which lot owners, occupiers or other people who have dealings with each other is generally not relevant to a determination of this question. Rather, the conduct relied upon must have an effect on the functioning or satisfactory functioning of the management of the strata scheme, which is regulated by Chapter 2 of the SSM Act. Without limitation, circumstances in which the management of the strata scheme may not be functioning or functioning satisfactorily include where a relevant level of management of the scheme (namely, one or more of the owners corporation as a whole, the strata committee or the strata manager):
   • does not perform a required function, for example to properly maintain the common property;
   • exercises a power or makes a decision for an improper purpose (for example conferring a benefit upon a particular lot owner or group of lot owners in a manner not authorised by the SSM Act);
   • fails to exercise a power or make a decision to prevent a contravention by lot owners and occupiers of their obligations under the SSM Act, including the Lot owners and occupiers obligation to comply with the by-laws; and
   • raises levies and takes or defends legal action on behalf of the owners corporation in circumstances where such action is unnecessary or not in the interests of the owners corporation or the lot owners as a whole.
2. The fact that some lot owners are dissatisfied with the owners corporation and strata committee does not establish that the strata scheme is not functioning satisfactorily: Hoare v The Owners-Strata Plan No 73905 [2018] NSWCATCD 45 at [202].
3. These principles have been referred to or applied in many cases in the Tribunal, including Maple v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 8950 [2021] NSWCATCD 108 at [19]- [22]; Chen v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 7262 [2022] NSWCATCD 58 at [40]; Westerweller v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 18484 [2022] NSWCATCD 203 at [60]- [61]; Ma v The Owners - Strata Plan No 65870 [2023] NSWCATCD 140 at [65]- [68]; and Foo v Frew [2023] NSWCATAP 303 at [21]- [23].
4. The applicant's written submissions also sets out a long list of previous cases where the Tribunal has considered appointing a compulsory strata manager. It is not necessary to refer to any of those decisions in any detail to determine the application.
5. Sections 106 and 237 of the SSM Act don't automatically interact. However a breach of the owners corporation's duty under section 106 may satisfy the grounds in section 237(3)(a) or (c), where the failure to maintain and repair common property demonstrates that the owners corporation has failed to perform its statutory duties, or that the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily. Prolonged or serious non‑compliance with section 106 is well‑recognised as a basis for compulsory appointment of a strata manager.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 227 of the SSM Act to make orders under s 237, on application from (amongst others) an owner of a lot or an occupier of a lot.
2. Jurisdiction is established on the facts of this case. The scheme is located in New South Wales and is governed by the SSM Act. The applicants are all owners and occupants of lots within the scheme. The applicants therefore have standing to seek the requested orders.

1. The building that comprises the strata scheme was constructed in about 1970. It comprises a 14-story residential apartment complex with 6 underground basement levels. The building was originally constructed as a hotel, and was converted into a residential strata scheme under the SSM Act in 1993. The first lots in the scheme were presumably sold at about that time.
2. Jamieson has acted as strata managing agent for the scheme since the building was converted to a residential complex, in 1993. There are 177 lots in the scheme: 142 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, and 34 utility lots. The residential lots include a mix of studio apartments and one-bedroom units averaging approximately 26 m² each. At least 32 of the utility lots are small car parks. There is also a ground floor meeting room and a communal laundry. The commercial lot currently operates as an after-hours café.
3. The scheme has a strata committee, although there is disagreement among the parties as to whether the strata committee functions satisfactorily. As at January 2025, the strata committee comprised 6 members - namely:

(1) Nr Nick Whiley, chairman;

(2) Mr James Ruben, secretary;

(3) Mr Michael Jarvin;

(4) Ms Selwyn;

(5) Ms Elelman; and

(6) Dr Galliott.

There were also two casual vacancies on the strata committee at that time. At that stage, Mr Whiley had served as chair of the strata committee for approximately 19 years - since about 2006.

1. Mr Thornburrow has acted as building manager for the strata scheme since about 2002. In that role, he is responsible for the day to day onsite management of the building, including ensuring compliance with the by-laws of the strata scheme and dealing with repair and maintenance issues, reporting to the strata committee.
2. According to records produced by Sydney City Council, the council first gave notice to the owners corporation in February 2012 of its intention to issue a proposed fire safety order, asserting that the building was deficient in fire safety and egress facilities on the grounds that the building's provisions for fire safety and fire safety awareness were "not adequate to prevent fire, suppress or prevent the spread of fire or ensure or promote the safety of persons in the event of fire" and/or that "maintenance or use of the premises constitutes a significant fires hazard". The council subsequently issued that fire safety order in May 2012.
3. In the nearly 14-year period since May 2022, the building has been continuously subject to two fire safety orders:

(1) The initial fire safety order that was issued in May 2012, which was subsequently modified twice by agreement with the owners corporation (in December 2015 and January 2018), and then revoked in August 2019, when a second fire safety order was issued.

(2) A second fire safety order that was issued in August 2019 (at the same time as the first order was revoked), which has subsequently been modified four times by agreement with the owners corporation (in January 2021, February 2022, December 2022 and March 2025), and remains in effect in its modified form.

1. Compliance with the council's orders has been significantly delayed. As identified above, the orders have been amended or extended several times. During the same period, the council has foreshadowed on several occasions that it would refer the matter to its legal services division to enforce the fire safety order.
2. While fire system upgrade works have been undertaken at the building since the first fire safety order was issued, the building still requires substantial rectification works to be completed in order to satisfy the current fire safety order. The owners corporation is relying on the decisions being made by its consulting engineers, the project manager and the tradesmen undertaking that work in relation to the completion of that work. On one occasion, a consultant engaged by the owners corporation or the project manager was "let go" because he was not performing. The project was also delayed over the years 2020-2022 because of the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the building trades.
3. Jameson was re-appointed as strata managing agents for the scheme in July 2024, for a further term of 12 months. It remains the strata managing agent for the scheme.
4. The owners corporation replaced the lifts in the building in late 2024. All parties report that there have been difficulties in the operation of the new lifts, which Mr Thornburrow described as "disappointing". He reported there were several "teething problems" with the new lifts, including a recent issue when one lift was shut down for a period while the repairers were waiting for new parts to arrive from Spain. Faults have also been noticed in the control board for the other lift, requiring the owners corporation to engage a lift consultant. This has resulted in periods when both lifts were not available for use, disadvantaging residents and resulting in a "handful" of people being entrapped in the lifts for periods of time, up to around 45 minutes.
5. Various lot owners have reported water ingress into their apartments from the roof of the building, particularly during or after heavy rains or "atypical storms". The owners corporation acknowledges that the waterproof membrane on the roof needs replacing, however it is not able to do that without engaging an engineer to assess the scope of the problem and to prepare a scope of works for a suitable solution. That work is being undertaken. A recent (July 2025) building report commissioned by the strata scheme identified that the waterproof membrane was approximately 32 years old, and well past its serviceable life.
6. The owners corporation has otherwise engaged tradesmen to undertake patching works on the roof of the building, which has alleviated that water ingress temporarily pending the completion of the fire safety works and the preparation of that engineered solution, when it envisages undertaking more fulsome repair works in the area of the roof. The cost of undertaking that work is significant: the strata committee noted at a meeting in March 2019 that the rooftop refurbishment and remedial repair as were then anticipated cost $900,000. That figure is likely increase significantly since then, due to the rapid increase in the cost of building materials in recent years.
7. In early November 2024, Dr Galliott took it upon himself to inspect the building and prepare a report, styled as a "Defect Report", setting out what Dr Galliott has described as instances where:

"... the owners corporation has systematically and grossly neglected its duty to repair and maintain common property ...

...

... highlighting in excess of several hundred individual defects, many of them critical, almost all with a detailed description, location, rectification and high resolution photographic evidence".

...

The vast majority of the issues listed in the defect Report have existed for several years without identification and/or attention.

Dr Galliott distributed that report to the "relevant" strata committee and the managing agent on 7 November 2024.

1. As noted above, Dr Galliott is an academic. He holds a PhD from Macquarie University, along with a Bachelor of Arts from the same university and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from Charles Sturt University. He has also completed executive‑level study in public leadership at Harvard University. These qualifications underpin his work as a defence‑technology scholar specialising in the ethics, law, and policy of emerging military systems. Between 2015 and 2022, Dr Galliott was an academic in the School of Engineering and Information Technology at the University of New South Wales. Since 2022, Dr Galliott has worked as an academic in the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Wollongong, specialising in the ethical, legal and social implications of technology and engineering, publishing many articles, books and chapters on those topics. Between approximately 2008 and 2012, Dr Galliott was also a firefighter with New South Wales Fire and Rescue, where he was trained in the examination and assessment of relevant fire standards and common building construction techniques.
2. Dr Galliott's qualifications and experience do not, on their face, qualify him as an expert in building defects, building pathology or the assessment of whether a multi-storey strata building is in good and serviceable repair. While he has relevant adjacent experience, and basic familiarity with building construction and fire standards through his time as a firefighter, his experience is not of the type normally required for expert evidence on building condition. His qualifications and experience are not equivalent to the qualifications of a building consultant, engineer or building inspector and do not qualify him to certify whether a multi-story strata building is in good and serviceable repair. As he lacks the specialised technical experience to give evidence on building defects or repair condition, his report must be treated as lay opinion.
3. Some of the defects asserted in Dr Galliott's report have been verified by other witnesses, including the tradesmen and the lot owners who gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. That included evidence of defects associated with electrical distribution board connections, the ventilation system and windows (including leaking through windows in atypical storms). The tribunal has accepted the parts of Dr Galliott's report that are corroborated by that other evidence. Otherwise, the Tribunal has assessed Dr Galliott's "defects report" as being the opinion of a layman, only, and given it little (if any) weight.
4. On Mr Thornburrow's evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, Dr Galliott's list was reviewed when it was received. Items that were considered urgent were actioned urgently, with engineers being engaged to investigate the roof and car park issues. However Mr Thornburrow's suggestion to the strata committee to engage a handyman to address the listed issues was refused, with Mr Thornburrow being told "don't use a dodge handyman", or words to that effect. Mr Thornburrow obtained quotes to address various painting items on the report, but the strata committee did not approve those quotes.
5. Some of the issues raised by Dr Galliott concerned mould and bathroom ducting issues. Mr Thornburrow obtained a quote to make safe electrical system connections to the ventilation system in order to get it running, which was then done, however the ventilation system was then shut down until works related to the fire safety order and the removal of asbestos are completed and new ducting has been installed. He also obtained a quotes to either clean the existing ventilation duct work at the building and sought a proposal to deal with the ventilation by the current contractors working as part of the works to address the fire order, but no such work appears to have been done.
6. This proceeding was commenced in December 2024.
7. In January 2025, Mr Houlton at CMS Consulting (the project manager for the owners corporation's fire safety works) wrote to the council and requested a further extension of time - to late November 2026 - to complete all remaining works stipulated under the fire safety order, which they said constituted: (a) re-entry facilities from fire isolated stairs; (b) fire doors and smoke seals to be provided; (c) basement stair pressurisation system; (d) hydrant system; and (e) upgrade existing fire suppression system.
8. In about March 2025, the applicants acquired around 30% of the lot owners' proxies, which they used to seek an urgent extraordinary general meeting of the owners corporation to address what Ms Elelman describes as "the serious safety and repair issues in the building", which she says, "were repeatedly denied or simply ignored". The applicants allege that the principals on those proxies were contacted by the building manager, Mr Thornburrow, Mr Wiley or his wife, in an attempt to convince them to change their proxies by various means.
9. An extraordinary general meeting was ultimately held "on the papers" on around 5 April 2025, resulting in Dr Galliott being removed from the strata committee. A Mr Rowe has since been appointed to replace Dr Galliott on the strata committee.
10. Ms Selwyn and Ms Elelman remained on the strata committee after that meeting occurred, however they have also now left the strata committee. Ms Elelman left the committee when the size of the strata committee was reduced from 8 members to 6 members at a recent annual general meeting that resulted in Ms Elelman not being re-elected to the committee. Ms Selwyn subsequently resigned from the committee.

1. The first issue to be determined is whether the applicants have established, one the balance of probabilities, one or more of the circumstances set out in section 237(3) of the SSM Act.
2. The applicants allege a range of matters to this end, including:

(1) failure to manage conflicts of interest;

(2) improper functioning of the strata committee;

(3) bullying, harassment and dishonesty;

(4) attempts to invalidate and/or obstruct motions;

(5) failures of the building manager;

(6) strata committee -related fraud; and

(7) failure of the owners corporation to perform its duties, including:

(a) the duty to maintain common property (section 106);

(b) the duty to enforce by-laws (section 146);

(c) the duty to give notice of strata committee meetings (Schedule 2); and

(d) the duty to keep a pecuniary interest disclosure book (Schedule 2).

1. The allegations advanced by the applicants potentially engage section 237(3)(a) and (c), namely that the management of the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily, or that the owners corporation has failed to perform one or more of its statutory duties.
2. On their face, those allegations may be sufficiently serious to justify finding that the management of the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily, or that the owners corporation has failed to perform one or more of its duties. No allegation is made under section 237(3)(b) or (d), and those grounds may be put aside.
3. The allegations made by the applicants include:

(1) That the owners corporation has taken too long to respond to the fire safety order and has been inadequate in its response.

(2) That the owners corporation has taken too long to respond to the need to repair the common property and has been inadequate in its response.

(3) That the strata manager and building manager have been reluctant to act in relation to physical attacks and harassment against several occupiers in the building, by another occupier of the building (who I will refer to as "Ms A"), asserting that they had "no evidence" despite there being CCTV footage, witness reports, police involvement and other material. While management did ultimately issue a notice to Ms A, that action is considered to be "short of expectations".

(4) That the strata committee has failed to adequately respond to incidents where users of the building have been trapped in the elevator, and continue to be trapped in the elevator, including by failing to post inside the elevators notice identifying the address of the building, the identity of that lift and a telephone number that can be used to seek emergency help in the event of entrapment, despite being alerted of these issues since at least 2024.

(5) That the strata committee has failed to adequately respond to allegations of mail packages being stolen and opened in the building.

(6) That lot owners have experienced objects, such as bottles, oil containers, cigarettes and other items, being thrown onto their balcony "from height".

(7) That the strata committee and the building manager have not responded adequately to crime in the building, including broken security doors, citing that they had "no evidence" and evincing a pattern of a lack of concern by them for safety and damage.

(8) That the garage door to the building had been removed for an extended period because of the "severely delayed" fire order remediation works, removing or reducing the security at the building, with the building manager failing to inform the strata committee of concerns about this for a long time.

(9) That the strata committee has failed to undertake "critical" or "urgent" repairs to common property, impacting (or causing apprehended impact to) the health and safety of the building, despite reports and witness statements from 22 occupants of the building since March 2025.

(10) That the majority members of the strata committee, including the chair, engineered the removal of Dr Galliott from the strata committee, through improper meeting processes, falsehoods, defamation of the applicants and intimidation or inducement of lot owners who had given proxies to the applicants.

(11) That the majority members of the strata committee and/or the building manager have regularly defamed the applicants in various official notices.

(12) That Dr Galliott, Ms Elelman and Ms Selwyn assert that they have been subject to intimidation, bullying, harassment, gas-lighting behaviour and defamation since at least November 2024, when Dr Galliott undertook his review of the condition of the building.

(13) That strata committee meetings have been called without warning or consideration of the applicants' availability, since early April 2025, in an attempt to diminish their vote on the committee.

(14) That Dr Galliott has been the subject of targeted attacks on his lot, including placing or smearing liquid faeces around the entrance to his lot in March 2025.

(15) That Dr Galliott's all-floors access keys to the building were deactivated on 7 Apri 2025, preventing him from inspecting common areas, collecting evidence and speaking to other occupants who have made statements for the proceedings and supporting vulnerable building occupants, in an attempt to obstruct his ability to substantiate the claims made in this proceeding.

(16) That the owners corporation and the strata manager has not maintained the strata roll since 2019 or 2023, and/or has failed to provide access to a current strata roll on request by qualified persons to view the roll, deliberately frustrating the applicants' attempts to communicate with other lot owners about this proceeding.

(17) That the strata committee issued multiple frivolous and vexatious by-law enforcement notices to Ms Galliott in April 2025 as retaliatory steps for the commencement of this proceeding, and have failed to take "meaningful action" against strata committee members for "known and actual" unauthorised renovations.

(18) That the owners corporation, including the strata manager, has feigned the non-receipt of served documents in the proceeding, in an attempt to delay compliance with the Tribunal's orders.

(19) That the building manager and others have been covertly using the building's CCTV system to spy on Dr Galliott's presence int eh common areas of the building, notably during meeting times, intimidating Dr Galliott.

(20) That the strata manager has made "misleading" suggestions of safety concerns in response to requests for in-person meetings of the strata committee, in an "attempt to exercise greater control over meetings", and/or has "utilised paper votes and e-meetings to impose time limits on discussions or to eliminate it completely", silencing persons seeking to speak.

(21) That the owners corporation has refused to engage in settlement discussions in an attempt to resolve this proceeding.

(22) That the intimidation of Dr Galliott through the above means has caused Dr Galliott great distress and psychological impact over an extended period of time.

(23) That the owners corporation has failed to issue notices to tenants for meetings, including the extraordinary general meeting held on 24 March 2025 and has failed to issue notices in calling strata committee meetings since Dr Galliott has lived in the building, materially affecting the outcome of all meetings and denying interested parties procedural fairness.

(24) That the written minutes of strata committee meetings have been "sanitised" or misleadingly paraphrased to remove any material that may be perceived as critical of management.

(25) That the strata manager has sought to mislead and bully strata committee members into not recording strata committee meetings for themselves.

(26) That the strata committee on 28 April 2025 voted to "improperly and irresponsibly" provide additional hours to the building manager for cleaning services, despite issues about the standard of his work, motions of no-confidence in the building manager, strenuous objections about the absence of any competitive tendering process and questions about whether the building manager is a fit and proper person for provision of services to the owners corporation.

(27) That the "faction" of members which controls the owners corporation and the strata committee has used the payment of those additional hours to the building manager "in return for his participating on improper proxy harvesting and the like".

(28) That there is a conflict io interest in the appointment of ChilledRite Refrigeration and Air Conditioning to undertake air conditioning work at the building, in circumstances where the director of that company is related to the Jameson's managing director, which the owners corporation has not managed appropriately.

(29) That there is a conflict of interest in the proposal to engage JS Mueller as the owners corporation's solicitors on this proceeding, because it serves Jameson's interest to prevent its own replacement, which the owners corporation has failed to manage appropriately.

(30) That there is a conflict of interest in the engagement of Sydney Property Care (Mr Thornburrow's company), Jameson and ChilledRite that the owners corporation has failed to manage appropriately, because those other companies are in receipt of work from Jamesons on several other strata plans.

(31) That the strata committee is unable to manage the owners corporation's affairs satisfactorily, because:

(a) The strata committee is (or was) effectively divided 50/50 between Mr Whiley and his supporters, and the applicants, resulting in a stalemate on important matters, such as enforcing by-laws and urgent repairs.

(b) The owners corporation has operated without proper financial oversight during Mr Robert Grey's tenure as treasurer, as Mr Grey regarded the role as "only a ceremonial post in which I performed no actual treasury function", resulting in some duplicate or improper payments during Mr Grey's tenure.

(c) The strata committee was unable to fill casual vacancies caused by the resignation of some strata committee members in December 2024-January 2025.

(d) The composition of the strata committee contributes to "ineffectiveness", because only one of the six committee members lives within the building and another only owns a car park space. There is also no tenant representative on the committee.

(e) There has been bullying, harassment and dishonesty, as asserted above.

(f) Attempts have been made to invalidate and/or obstruct motions of the strata committee in November-December 2024.

(g) Attempts have been made to remove committee members.

(32) That the building manager, Mr Thornburrow, has failed in his duties in many ways, including by failing to "properly" respond to complaints "in a timely fashion", by systematically failing to perform the required level of preventative and regular repair and maintenance, and by seeking to "enrich himself by quoting for repair and maintenance works not covered by his agreement rather than independently seeking external licensed contractors".

(33) That a former strata committee chair, from 20 years ago (Mr Hamilton), has exploited common property for personal enrichment by marking common property in the parking garage as a car space which he has subsequently let to a local lawyer for the last 20 years.

(34) That the owners corporation has "systematically and grossly" neglected its duties to enforce by-laws., in particular the by-law concerning obstructing common property by parking vehicles on the common property (by-law 3), the by-law concerning depositing rubbish on common property (by-law 9), the by-law concerning the drying of laundry items (by-law 10), the by-law concerning moving objects and furniture through common property (by-law 13), the by-law concerning floor coverings in lots (by-law 14), the by-law concerning parking only registered vehicles in parking spaces (by-law 20) and special by-law 6, for works within a lot.

(35) That the owners corporation has failed to display notice of strata committee meetings on the noticeboard "if any" maintained by the owners corporation.

(36) That the owners corporation has not kept a pecuniary interest disclosure book.

1. The Tribunal has examined the evidence produced by both parties addressing each of these allegations, and has come to the following determination of the claim.

1. Both parties have provided extensive written submissions in support of their respective positions. The Tribunal has considered those submissions, together with the oral submissions made by both parties at the hearing, carefully against the evidence produced by both parties, and come to the following decision.
2. The applicants bear the onus of proving each of the allegations they advance against the respondent owners corporation, and must do so on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the conduct alleged is more likely than not to have occurred, having regard to the quality and reliability of the evidence adduced.
3. While the applicants tendered some direct evidence - such as their own statements (sworn or unsworn), limited witness testimony, minutes of meetings and certain records, that material was modest in scope. The applicants' primary evidentiary approach was to instead tender a large volume of emails and correspondence generated after the events said to constitute the impugned conduct. Those documents largely consist of complaints and assertions by the applicants and others, rather than contemporaneous or first-hand accounts of the conduct itself.
4. Complaints made after the fact do not, without more, establish the facts complained of. The Tribunal must determine what actually occurred, and the material relied upon does not describe the alleged conduct with sufficient clarity or detail to permit findings of fact. The minutes and notices produced confirm that resolutions were passed and notices issued on particular dates, but they do not establish the motivations or conduct attributed to individuals. The subsequent correspondence tendered is, in substance, a restatement of the applicants' perceptions and grievances, not evidence capable of proving the underlying events.
5. The applicants' extensive cross‑examination of the respondent's witnesses did not materially advance their case. The evidence elicited consisted largely of denials of the motives alleged and did not provide support for the applicants' assertions. Taken as a whole, the applicants' evidence does not establish any of the alleged conduct on the balance of probabilities, nor does it demonstrate that any proven events amount to unsatisfactory functioning of the scheme or a failure by the owners corporation to comply with its statutory duties.
6. By contrast, the evidence does establish that core management functions are being performed: the owners corporation maintains insurance, keeps proper records, issues notices, holds meetings at which owners vote on motions, maintains audited financial accounts, and is actively progressing substantial fire safety and maintenance works. These matters indicate a functioning management structure. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that any ground under s 237(3)(a) or (c) has been made out. Dissatisfaction with committee decisions, interpersonal conflict, or disagreement about priorities does not, without more, demonstrate unsatisfactory management.
7. None of the complaints concerning bullying, harassment, failures to enforce by-laws, failures to provide a pecuniary interests disclosure book, failures to conduct meetings appropriately, conflicts of interest, failure to provide notices of meetings on notices or to tenants, fraud and manipulation of meetings or outcomes of votes have been made out to the balance of probabilities on the evidence before the Tribunal. Those allegations were unsupported by cogent evidence and cannot ground a finding under section 237(3).
8. The delays in completing fire safety works reflect the scale and complexity of the project rather than mismanagement.
9. Lastly, Dr Galliott's "Defect Report", while prepared in good faith, is lay opinion and carries limited weight; the evidence shows that its contents were reviewed and actioned in a structured manner. The allegation that the owners corporation has not been properly repairing and maintaining the common property is also unsupported by the evidence. The evidence discloses that the owners corporation is seeking to manage the repairs appropriately, both large and small, including through the use of appropriately-qualified tradesman instead of unqualified handymen. That is a reasonable management decision to take in the circumstances of this building, particularly while the fire safety order is being attended to. Similarly, triaging of repair works to fit in with the fire safety order works, such as the replacement of the roof membrane, appears to be a sound management decision in the circumstances of this building.
10. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the owners corporation has failed to perform its duties under s 106, nor that the management of the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily.

1. Taking all of the matters raised by the parties into account (including those that have not been expressly addressed in these reasons), the Tribunal Is not satisfied that the preconditions for appointing a strata manager contained in section 237(3) have been satisfied in this case. As none of the statutory preconditions in section 237(3) have been established, the Tribunal's discretion to appoint a compulsory strata managing agent is not enlivened.
2. Even if a ground under section 237(3) had been made out, the evidence would not justify such an interventionist order. The applicants' proposal to appoint a strata manager to this scheme is disproportionate to the issues that the applicants have raised. The application must therefore be dismissed.
3. The owners corporation wishes to be heard on costs following this decision. In that case, it is appropriate to also make orders for the parties to make submissions on costs.
4. The orders made by the Tribunal are therefore:

(1) The application is dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal is not satisfied to the civil standard (being the balance of probabilities) on the material put before it that there are grounds for the Tribunal to make the orders sought.

(2) If any party wishes to seek an order for costs, then:

(a) That party (the "costs applicant") is to provide to the other parties (the "costs respondents") and to the Tribunal any application for costs setting out the costs order they contend for and any written submissions (strictly not exceeding 5 pages) setting out the reasons relied on for making that order, together with any other relevant documents or material, within 14 days after the date this decision is issued to the parties.

(b) The costs respondents are to provide to the costs applicant and to the Tribunal written submissions in response (strictly not exceeding 5 pages) setting out the reasons relied on against making that proposed order, together with any other relevant documents or material, within 28 days after the date this decision is issued to the parties.

(c) The Tribunal proposes to dispense with a hearing in relation to the application for costs under section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), with the intent that the costs issue will be determined on the papers. The parties are to include in their submission whether the application for costs can be adequately determined on the papers without the need for an oral hearing.

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.