Although this application failed, the applicants are not prohibited from making a subsequent application in relation to a different proposal. Alternatively, the applicants could consider requesting the owners corporation to lease the common property airspace. A well-documented lease may be able to minimise the risks noted in these reasons.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2017-05-22

The applicant also sought an order under s 34D(1)(c) for an order consenting on behalf of a person whose consent to the registration of the plan is required under s 22 of the Subdivision Act 1988. A person whose consent is required under s 22 is a registered mortgagee, lessee, annuitant or caveator. Because the application under s 34D(1)(a) and (b) failed, the application under (c) is not required. The application under s 34D(1)(c) is dismissed.

Although this application failed, the applicants are not prohibited from making a subsequent application in relation to a different proposal. Alternatively, the applicants could consider requesting the owners corporation to lease the common property airspace. A well-documented lease may be able to minimise the risks noted in these reasons.

[1] The applicants do not rely on s 34D(3)(a) or (b).

[2] Exhibit KOG-8 to the affidavit of Kateena Anne O'Gorman, sworn 18 April 2017 and filed in support of the application contained all the documents accompanying the ballot.

O'Gorman v Owners Corporation RP 018831 (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 579 (22 May 2017)

The applicants seek an order under either s 34D(1)(a) or (b) to amend to amend the plan of subdivision. They are entitled to seek an order under either sub-section. Garde J, President of the Tribunal, stated in Conroy v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 30438 (Owners Corporations) [2014] VCAT 550 (Conroy):

O'Gorman v Owners Corporation RP 018831

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

O'Gorman v Owners Corporation RP 018831 (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 579 (22 May 2017)