Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 7, s 12(1), s 13, s 14(8), s 39, s 43, s 63, s 63(1), s 63(2), s 64, s 83, s 91(1)(b), s 91(2), s 91(3), s 197(1)(a)(iii), s 197(1)(a)(iv), s 197(1)(a)(vi), s 200, Pt 4, Div 4, Pt 8, Div 1, Sch 1, Sch 2

Laffin and Renouf [2016] WASAT 48

The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil [2022] WASC 305

The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil also known as Ahmed Kamil [2025] WASAT 19

The Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 and Mangles SMSF Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 101

(The application was heard on 24 October and 11 December 2025. An oral decision was delivered on 12 December 2025. The following reasons comprise the reasons that were delivered orally, subject only to minor editing to improve clarity of expression and setting out.)

1. This is an application by Mr Warwick Harry (Mr Harry or applicant) under s 197(1)(a)(iii), s 197(1)(a)(iv) and s 197(1)(a)(vi) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (the Act).
2. Mr Harry is the owner of unit 8 in a strata complex comprised of 13 units in a complex in South Perth known as 'Norfolk Gardens' and bordered by Clarence Street and Onslow Street. Unit 8 is a second-floor unit and is directly above unit 4 which belongs to the respondent, Ms Louise Walker (Ms Walker or respondent). Both units 4 and 8 front Clarence Street.
3. In dispute are two structures which have been erected by Ms Walker on common property as follows:

(a) Area A - a fence outside her front door (sometimes referred to as her back door in the evidence) which effectively makes a very small courtyard or what Mr Harry refers to as a 'cage';

(b) Area B - a fence across common property, outside the front of her unit (where there are two windows looking into her kitchen and dining room) which joins together two exclusive use courtyards making one bigger courtyard area.

1. There was a third structure in dispute - a shed on common property, but this has been removed by Ms Walker.

1. Mr Harry says that this matter raises issues of fairness and equity.
2. His concern about the fence in Area A is that it was done without approval and is a potential fire hazard to the occupants of unit 4.
3. His concerns about the fence in Area B are that the fence was erected without permission, that it is a 'land grab' which increases the value of Ms Walker's property to the disadvantage of other lot owners and that the fence restricts his access to his gas meter and the ease by which emergency services may access the gas meters in the case of some sort of emergency.
4. He dismisses Ms Walker's concerns about security by arguing that security could have been achieved by placing the fence on the boundaries of unit 4 and by installing security screens on the two windows.
5. He says that this is about the proper and lawful management of common property and it is not personal.
6. He points out that no resolution without dissent has been passed, no exclusive use by-law has been made, and no notification of the alterations were given to all owners. He gave evidence that the first notification he received about the fence was on 21 January 2018.
7. He also says that the respondent has altered the common property in a 'covert and deliberate manner'.
8. Mr Harry seeks the following orders:

(a) the removal of the unauthorised fences and gates installed by Ms Walker on common property;

(b) reinstatement of the affected areas to a condition consistent with the registered strata plan;

(c) in the alternative, that any exclusive use of these areas be subject to formal approval by special resolution of the strata company under s 64, and that compensation or other equitable adjustment be considered; and

(d) that, to preserve complex security, any fencing be reconstructed solely within the boundaries of Lot 4 or at the limit of any lawfully approved exclusive use area, consistent with the registered strata plan and any applicable by-laws, and that such reconstruction be undertaken at the cost of the respondent.

1. Ms Walker's position is that both alterations were done for security purposes both for security for her unit and for security for the whole development. She says that there have been security issues documented at the complex since 2010.
2. In summary, her position is:

(a) she sought the permissions which she genuinely believed to be necessary at the time and paid for the fences herself;

(b) she has facilitated the gas meters being read and reported a gas leak when it occurred;

(c) the common area courtyards for units 1 and 3 have been fenced off in a similar manner to the courtyard outside her lot and that this occurred prior to her fence - however, the application to the Tribunal only relates to the fences she erected;

(d) the courtyard was never used by any other lot owners for any purpose except for maintenance and that there is a large common area which can be used for community events in another part of the complex. The owner of unit 8 does not live at the complex and none of the other owners have said to her they wish to use this space;

(e) she does not in fact have exclusive use of the area as it is still accessible by others;

(f) In relation to Area A, her entry door is the only door in full view of the driveway through the carpark and is only 3 metres from the driveway. She says that before the gate was installed intruders passed through the car parks at all times of the day and night, safety was an issue, as well as theft and damage to cars. She agrees that security has improved in the complex since the installation of the gates and the fence along the Clarence Street side but that there have been numerous issues with Airbnb guests in her complex; and

(g) In relation to Area B, the expensive security measures of the driveway and pedestrian gates would be ineffective without this fence remaining which would defeat the intention of the owners of the complex as expressed at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in 2018 and 2019.

1. The hearing was held on 24 October and 11 December 2025.
2. The Tribunal also attended a site visit on the morning of 24 October 2025.
3. A hearing book was tendered into evidence as Exhibit 1. Mr Harry gave evidence and also called three witnesses - Mr Connor McGoverne, the owner of unit 5, Ms Beverley Daniel, the Strata Manager and Ms Raelene Vinciullo, the owner of unit 2.
4. Ms Walker gave evidence and called the following witnesses: Mr Kevin Prior (former owner of Unit 3 and on the Council of Owners (CoO) for 20 or so years) Mr Cliff Rolfe, Ms Claire McKenna (gardener at the complex), Mr Brad Jervis (owner of unit 10) and Mr Ashton George (the new owner of unit 3).

1. A strata titles scheme is registered when the scheme documents are registered and incorporated in the register. The scheme documents include the scheme by-laws: s 12(1) of the Act.
2. The strata plan for this development, Strata Plan 2868, was registered on 3 December 1974.
3. On registration of a strata titles scheme, a strata company is established for the strata titles scheme: s 12(1) of the Act. A strata company is comprised of the owners for the time being of the lots in the strata titles scheme (who are the members of the strata company): s 14(8) of the Act.
4. These proceedings concern the use of 'common property'.
5. Section 7 of the Act provides for strata title schemes so as to effect a physical division of a parcel of land into two or more lots, and may include common property 'to be administered by the strata company'. The scheme may limit how the common property may be dealt with.
6. Common property vests in the owners of lots in a strata scheme as tenants in common in shares proportional to the unit entitlements of their respective lots: s 13.
7. Part 4 Div 4 of the Act provides for scheme by-laws. On registration of a strata titles scheme, the governance and conduct by-laws set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 are taken to be registered for the scheme unless amended or repealed by other registered by-laws: s 39.
8. By-laws may include exclusive use by-laws which confer exclusive use or special privileges over the common property or specified common property on the occupiers of specified lots: s 43.
9. Neither party contended that exclusive use by-laws had been made in this case which are applicable to Area A or B.
10. Section 83 of the Act provides:

The owner or occupier of a lot must not use, or permit the use of, the lot or common property of the strata titles scheme in a way that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of another lot or the common property by a person who is lawfully on the lot or common property.

1. Part 8 Div 1 sets out the functions of the strata company. The strata company must control and manage the common property for the benefit of all the owners of lots (s 91(1)(b)), may improve or alter the common property in a manner which goes beyond what is required under subsection (1): s 91(2) and may sue and be sued for rights and liabilities related to the common property as if it were the owner and occupier of the common property: s 91(3).
2. In the decision of The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil also known as Ahmed Kamil [2025] WASAT 19 the Tribunal stated at [221] as follows:

The statutory duty imposed on a strata company under s 91(1)(b) of the ST Act cannot be carried out properly if a lot owner, or more than one lot owner, assumes control and management of the common property for their own benefit or otherwise. Chaos would arise if each lot owner made their own arrangements for the control and management of the common property. That is why s 91(1)(b) of the ST Act should be construed as conferring an exclusive power on the Strata Company to control and manage the common property for the benefit of all of the lot owners.

1. In the decision of Laffin and Renouf [2016] WASAT 48 Member Aitken (as he then was) stated as follows at [33] - [34]:
   1. The law is clear. The common property of a strata scheme is owned jointly by the proprietors of all the lots. The strata company of the strata scheme has the power and duty to control and manage the common property and to keep the common property in good repair and properly maintained ...
   2. However, except where renewal or replacement is necessary to keep common property in good repair, no works for the demolition or alteration of any structure on the common property or for the erection of any structure on the common property can be carried out by a strata company or any proprietor unless a resolution without dissent is passed. (Citations omitted)
2. There is some dispute in the authorities as to whether structural alterations of common property which occur under the new Strata Titles Act which commenced on 1 May 2020 require a resolution without dissent or a majority resolution. It is not necessary to consider this issue in this decision as the evidence before me establishes, and I find, that all the alterations occurred prior to the new Act commencing and that therefore a resolution without dissent was required.
3. However, that is not the end of the matter. The Tribunal retains a discretion as to whether to make the orders sought, even though the alterations were made in the absence of a resolution without dissent.

1. It was evident during the hearing of this matter that there is a long history of animosity between the parties. For example, Mr Harry gave evidence that when he and his wife had their first child, Ms Walker would complain about the baby crying. The relationship deteriorated further when a water leak occurred in Mr Harry's unit which damaged Ms Walker's unit. Ms Walker gave evidence that Mr Harry started renting his unit as short-term accommodation whilst her son was completing year 12 which caused problems.
2. However, despite this history of animosity the background facts are not in dispute between the parties and I find as follows:
   • The complex consists of 13 units.
   • The applicant is the owner of unit 8. He lived at the property for 5 years between 2008 - 2013 and now runs it on Airbnb as short stay accommodation.
   • The respondent is the owner of unit 4 and has lived at her property since she bought it in 2011.
   • The alterations in question were done in 2017 (Area A) and 2018 (Area B). A white 'pool' fence was installed in Area B in 2017 and the black fencing which Mr Harry objects to was installed in 2018.
   • Both fences were approved by the CoO on the basis of security reasons.
   • The fences were not approved by a resolution without dissent.
   • There have been proposals in the past (going back to the 2010 AGM) to fence the entire complex but this has not occurred due to cost implications.
   • Security gates were erected in the complex in June 2022.
   • The composition of the complex has changed over the last few years from being mainly owner occupied to being between four to seven short-term stay accommodation businesses operating.
   • There are other areas in the complex where alterations to common property have occurred. They are the alteration of the courtyards outside units 1 and 3 in a very similar manner to Area B, fencing of two units on the Onslow Street side and the conversion of a carport to a shed in unit 13 with the result that the car for unit 13 is parked on common property.
   • At the December 2024 AGM granting exclusive use to some of the common property areas which have been altered was voted on. In relation to Area A eight units voted in favour and three units voted against, including Mr Harry.
   • In relation to Area B - nine units voted in favour and two units against including Mr Harry.
   • The complaint was made in the Tribunal on 30 August 2024.

1. As outlined above the law required that a resolution without dissent be passed to authorise the alterations relating to unit 4 which did not occur.

Relevant criteria to the exercise of discretion

1. When exercising its discretion as to whether to make the orders sought, the Tribunal must weigh all relevant factors in order to consider what is the correct and preferable decision in all of the circumstances. In my view, consistent with the decision of the Tribunal in The Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 and Mangles SMSF Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 101, the factors that the Tribunal must consider in this case when balancing the exercise of its discretion are as follows:
   • whether the respondent has acted in good faith;
   • how long the structural alterations have been in place;
   • consistency and precedent;
   • the purpose of the structural alteration (including in this case a consideration of the security issues);
   • amenity/visual impact and impact on other lot owners;
   • views of the other lot owners; and
   • access to gas meters/impact on emergency situations.

1. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Walker that she acted in good faith when she did the alterations, believing that this could be done with the approval of the CoO. The evidence of the Strata Manager Ms Daniel was that at the time, she believed that this was the correct process. Ms Daniel is the current strata manager and has been the manager for 5 years or so. Her evidence was not assisted by the fact that it was by telephone, but generally the Tribunal did not find Ms Daniel to be a helpful witness. She had a poor recollection of important events and a lack of knowledge of what was currently occurring in the complex (for example how many short stay units there are). However, her evidence is consistent with Ms Walker's that at the time, she believed that all that was required to approve structural alterations on common property, was the approval of the CoO.

1. The passage of time is another matter that requires consideration. Based on his own evidence, the Tribunal finds that Mr Harry was aware of the alterations for at least 4 years before he made this application to the Tribunal.
2. Mr Harry stated during his evidence that this was because after the water leak in his property had occurred this had highlighted potential issues for him around other services such as gas. He also said that this was because he did not want to cause a stir and that it would take a lot of time and effort.
3. In the Tribunal's view the fact that the alterations have been in place approximately 6 years (and known to the applicant for approximately 4 years) is a relevant factor in the exercise of its discretion.

1. Mr Harry said that this application is only about unit 4, not the other two similar courtyard areas outside units 1 and 3, as this area is closer to his. He also gave evidence that he thought that the other two areas were done correctly as Mr Prior, the previous owner of Unit 3 said he would do it all by the book.
2. The Tribunal finds it difficult to understand why Mr Harry would have accepted on face value that the other structural alterations were done by the book given these alterations are almost identical to the alteration in Area B. In any event, the Tribunal finds that at least by the time Mr Harry lodged his application with the Tribunal he was aware that there were many alterations to common property in the complex which had been done without a resolution without dissent, not just unit 4's structural alterations.
3. In the Tribunal's view it is appropriate for it to have regard, in the exercise of its discretion to the way in which the strata company has approached questions of interference with common property historically.
4. The fact remains that many other areas of common property in the complex have had structural alterations done seemingly without a resolution without dissent. There is a live question based on the evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the unit 3 fence was in fact approved by a resolution without dissent - however even if it was, this also sets a clear precedent for the approval of Area B given the very similar nature of the areas.
5. This application is only about unit 4. The fact that this application only concerns unit 4 is a relevant factor to be considered by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion.

1. Mr Harry gave evidence that there are now between four and seven Airbnb's operating in the complex including his own unit. He said that when he lived in the complex, it was comprised mainly of owners/occupiers and now it has a very different composition. When giving his evidence Mr Harry conceded that it is possible that there are more concerns about security as a result.
2. Mr Harry gave evidence that he did not believe that there was an issue with security at the complex in general however he did concede in cross-examination that Ms Walker's concerns about security had been raised over the years and documented over the years in the minutes of AGMs.
3. Mr Harry's view is that it is possible to secure the property in other ways such as security screens on the windows and with security cameras.
4. Under cross-examination it was evident, and the Tribunal finds that Mr Harry was unaware of many of the security issues which have occurred at the complex. For example, he stated he was unaware that a bike had been stolen from a first floor unit, that a car had been stolen, or an e-bike had been stolen.
5. Mr Harry submitted that the respondent had not provided 'proof' of security issues - however, security concerns have been repeatedly documented in the AGMs and in the notes of the meetings of the CoO. It is not surprising in the Tribunal's view that the respondent did not have access to documents such as police reports of these events.

1. Ms Vinciullo gave evidence for the respondent. She is the owner of unit 2 a ground floor unit which overlooks the green grass area on Onslow Street. Her evidence was that she believed that the fence in Area B 'probably stops people going in or out' but that it added no extra security for units 1, 2 and 3 as they face Onslow Street. Her evidence was that to ensure security there should be a fence around both sides, not just the Clarence Street side as it was 'only half secure' now.
2. Mr McGoverne was also called to give evidence by the respondent. He is an owner and occupier of unit 5 and has only lived in the complex about 18 months. It was apparent from his evidence that he was 'not too fussed' about the common area courtyards being utilised for individual use as long as some sort of monetary compensation was provided. He was asked about his concerns about security at the complex. He said none at the moment and if the fence was removed, his view was that the garden would stop 99% of the population.
3. Mr George, the new owner of unit 3 gave evidence as to security. He gave evidence that he wants to increase the security at his own unit and that he wants all the current fencing left as it is. He maintained under cross-examination that the fence around Area A also increases security for the whole complex as it prevents people from getting into unit 4's property.
4. Mr Prior also gave evidence, Mr Prior is the previous owner of unit 3 and a long-standing member of the CoO. He was asked about the background to a 2010 proposal to the AGM for security fencing for the whole complex. His evidence was that at that time, on both Onslow Street and Clarence Street all the ground floor apartments were generally open to the public and people could walk up to the windows. He gave the example of one day someone wanted some water and they walked up to the tap on his property and helped themselves. He also referred to increasing crime in South Perth.
5. He was also asked about the background to the white fence which was installed in Area B in 2017. He confirmed that a similar fence in the courtyard outside unit 1 was already installed at that time and that his recollection was that Ms Walker came and asked if she could erect fencing as there had been a number of incidences where people had come up and looked through her windows. He specifically recalled an incident where she told him that she challenged someone and they said they were looking at her ornaments.
6. Mr Rolfe also gave evidence. His view, in relation to the fence in Area B is that it is '[j]ust ridiculous how it has got to this' and that:

Taking down that fence will expose the complex to anyone walking off the street - through the common area of Unit 4 and gain access to the whole complex via the common area of the Exit driveway. This would make the Strata's recent outlay on security gates useless.

1. His evidence was that he was present at the 2018 AGM and he confirmed that security was discussed at length as there had been a number of problems. His evidence was that the intention at that time was to put both gates and fences up because so many issues with security were occurring, including smashed cars.
2. Ms McKenna, a gardener at the complex also gave evidence. Mr Harry alleges, in relation to some of the other witnesses who own ground floor units that they have a vested interest in the outcome of these proceedings. However, Ms McKenna is an independent witness and the Tribunal found her evidence to be clear and persuasive.
3. Her evidence is that she when she started working at the complex there were no security gates installed - they were installed in June 2022. She said she was warned by the previous gardener during handover that smashed car windows in the parking lot were a regular occurrence.
4. Her evidence was that she had to clear up broken glass three or four times in around 18 months from when she first started working there until the gates were installed. She said she had also heard from owners and Airbnb renters that many more incidents occurred during this period.
5. She said since the gates were installed, she had not had to clear up any glass, but she had spoken to Airbnb guests who parked on the streets whose cars have been damaged on the street.
6. She also gave evidence that since working at the complex she has found plants trampled and broken reticulation at the back of the garden bed on the left corner of the Area B fencing. This is an area where Ms Walker has also grown bougainvillea as an added deterrent. Her view is that there is no reason why anyone would push through bougainvillea and be in this section of the garden unless they were trying to get over the security fence.
7. Her view is that if the Area B fencing is removed, it makes access possible to the rest of the property, effectively making the security gates null and void.
8. She says that once every couple of months she still finds garden beds trampled.
9. Her view is that if the Area B fence is removed, people would be straight over the hedge 'probably on the first night'.

1. The December 2024 AGM Minutes record that Ms Walker states that the short stay occupants smoke outside her front door and that once her door had been kicked.
2. Mr Prior also gave evidence about Area A - his recollection was that Ms Walker asked if she could put fencing up to stop people coming into common areas, purely from a safety and security point of view as temporary accommodation guests were loitering in her doorway and smoking.
3. In her evidence Ms Walker agreed that security has been improved at the complex since installing the gates, but her view was that it was still necessary to maintain this fence. She said she had had many incidents with Airbnb guests - kicking of her door, smoking in her doorway and another incident where a guest tried to climb on her courtyard wall following a noise complaint.

1. There is clearly an appetite within the complex for fencing around the whole property. However, the Tribunal has not been asked to determine this issue. On the basis of the evidence, I have heard I find that there have been numerous issues with security in the complex over the years, which has improved following the installation of the security gates and Area B fence.
2. Although the witnesses' evidence was generally consistent that the security situation had improved since the installation of the gates, the Tribunal finds that issues still remain. Ms Vinciullo gave evidence of an incident of a lump of cash stolen from unit 7, six or eight months ago. Further the evidence of the gardener, Ms McKenna, confirms there are still issues at the complex both with people attempting to come inside the complex and with damage to cars parked on the street.
3. It was evident from the site visit and the Tribunal finds that the properties facing Onslow Road are set back much further from the road than the Clarence Street properties. Further, I find that higher floor units have greater security due to their position.
4. The Tribunal finds that Ms Walker's front door is the closest to the carpark area and the only front door visible from the carpark with the exception of one of the first floor units.
5. The Tribunal finds that the complex has changed in the years since Ms Walker bought her unit as there are now approximately half the units being used as short-term accommodation. The Tribunal finds that this is likely to lead to more security issues within the complex.
6. The applicant made much of the fact that the CoO and many of Ms Walker's witnesses were ground floor unit holders. The response to this of course is that the CoO positions are voluntary positions and only those who volunteer can be included. In any event the respondent called Mr Jervis who is not a ground floor owner and who manages an Airbnb at unit 10. He is supportive of the fences being maintained. He was asked whether the fact that there are no fences on Onslow Street is a concern? He said that he would like the CoO to look at increasing security along that area (and noted that some of those units have also installed their own security) but that he wanted to go forward in terms of security not to reduce it. He said that removing the Area B fence reduces current security as it means that people can walk straight up to the windows of unit 4 and that he does not see the point of removing the fence.
7. The Tribunal found the evidence of Mr Jervis to be very persuasive given that he is not a ground floor unit owner. The Tribunal agrees that just because there is no fence along the Onslow Street side at present does not mean that fencing alongside the Clarence Street fence should be removed.

1. The concern of Mr Harry about Area A is that is 'looks terrible' and is obtrusive on the whole property. He said there is random furniture and buckets and shoes and plants out the front.
2. The respondent says that in relation to this area, it is the only entry door in full view of the driveway through the carpark and only 3 metres from the driveway. As noted above, during the site visit, the Tribunal observed that unit 8's front door was also visible from the carpark but notes that it is on the first floor. The Tribunal did not observe clutter out the front of unit 4's property during the site visit.
3. Ms Vinciullo gave evidence about this area - she said that it 'doesn't look very nice, but the issue for me was that it was done without consent'.
4. During his evidence Mr Harry was asked about his concern with Area B and how the fence impacts on his enjoyment of it. He said they have taken a section right outside his kitchen and dining room and that if they look out of the window they look down at that space whenever they have dinner.
5. The Tribunal finds that Mr Harry does not live in the complex and has not presented any evidence that the Area B fence has impacted in any way on the amenity of the guests in his Airbnb business.
6. Mr McGoverne said in his evidence that he might use Area B for a clothesline or an area to sit or have a picnic. Given that Mr McGoverne's unit is on the other side of the complex to unit 4, the Tribunal finds that it is exceedingly unlikely that this would in fact occur.
7. Mr Harry said that the area had been used for BBQs in the past. This was disputed by Ms Walker who said it was in fact a different area where BBQs had been held.
8. The balance of the evidence of the witnesses was to the effect that no one else would gain any benefit from the use of the area.
9. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Walker that no other resident has expressed an interest in using the area. The Tribunal has viewed the area and it is a small area down the side under Ms Walker's kitchen and dining windows. The Tribunal viewed a large, grassed area on the Onslow Street side of the complex where the Tribunal finds it would be much more likely that the residents would choose to sit, rather than under Ms Walker's kitchen window.
10. The Tribunal finds that it is very unlikely that the fence impacts on the amenity of any other owner as they would be very unlikely to have a need to use the area.
11. The Tribunal finds that in any event in relation to Area B that the area can be currently accessed as the shed has been taken down and the white fencing which was erected in 2017 is not locked and also does not extend to the boundary. Ms Walker confirmed in her evidence that currently anyone can access the area and therefore in fact the area is not currently exclusively for Ms Walker's use.

1. As outlined above, some other unit owners gave evidence. Despite a notifying person order being made, no owner felt strongly enough about the matter to be joined as a party.
2. The most recent record which the Tribunal has about the views of other lot owners is in the AGM in December 2024 where, as previously stated, the overwhelming majority of owners were supportive of both Area A and Area B fences remaining.

Access to gas meters/impact on emergency situations

1. Mr Harry has concerns that it will be difficult for him to access his gas meter. However, he was unable to point to an occasion where he had needed to access this meter and had been unable to.
2. As noted previously, the evidence of Ms Walker was that access to this area remains, through the area where the shed was recently removed or through a side gate.
3. Section 63 of the Act is entitled 'utility services easement'. Subsections (1) and (2) of s 63 state as follows:

(1) An easement (a utility service easement) exists for the benefit and burden of each lot and the common property in a strata titles scheme to the extent reasonably required for the provision of utility services to each lot and the common property.

(2) A utility service easement entitles the strata company, and the owner of a lot, in the strata titles scheme -

(b) to examine, maintain, repair, modify and replace utility conduits.

1. Further, the uncontested evidence of Ms Walker was and I find that she noticed a gas leak in the recent past and took prompt and appropriate steps to address the leak. I also find that she has facilitated access to the meters so that they can be read at appropriate times.
2. None of the witnesses who were called to give evidence expressed concerns about access to the gas meters in the area.
3. Mr Harry was also concerned about access to the gas meters 'in case of an emergency'. However, there are large gates at two points allowing access into the middle of the complex. I do not accept, as Mr Harry stated in his evidence, that this complex is a 'maze' - I find that it is a relatively small and simply structured strata complex. In my view there would be no difficulty for emergency services in accessing the courtyard with a map.
4. Mr Harry was also concerned about emergency services being unable to access gates if no one was home, but he agreed there had been recent discussions about the provision of a key to emergency services to access the gate and he supported this proposal moving forward.
5. I find that there is no evidence before the Tribunal which supports the need for access to the gas meters direct from Clarence Street in case of an emergency.
6. Mr Harry also expressed concern about Area A being a fire hazard due to the fence in front of the front door. He offered no basis for this concern. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the fence has a faulty mechanism or is difficult to open. Further I find that Ms Walker has multiple access points from her unit to the rest of the complex.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges the desirability of residents and proprietors respecting the common ownership of common property and of them seeking the appropriate approvals before they make alterations to that property.
2. Ultimately however, the Tribunal has reached the view that notwithstanding that the respondent did not have the required approval by resolution without dissent of the strata company to erect the fences in both Areas A and B, it would not, given the particular criteria discussed above, and in all of the circumstances, be reasonable now to require the respondent to remove the fences.
3. The Tribunal therefore declines to exercise its discretion to make the orders sought by the applicant in relation to either Area A or B.
4. The Tribunal is aware of its obligation to resolve the dispute between the parties: The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil [2022] WASC 305 and the broad powers available to the Tribunal under s 200 of the ST Act.
5. In this case the respondent has not made an application to the Tribunal that the structural alterations she made to common property be taken to be approved by a resolution without dissent.
6. The Tribunal notes that a way forward, in order to regularise all exclusive use of common property in the scheme (and to ensure the individual lot owners are responsible for the maintenance of their parts of the common property) is by the making of an exclusive use by-law. However, that is not a matter which is before the Tribunal. Further, as the Tribunal has noted above, in relation to Area B, the evidence before the Tribunal is that Ms Walker does not have exclusive use of that area in any event.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.