PIZA v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN NO 269 & ANOR (Unit Titles)

Pursuant to section 129(1)(c) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (UTM Act), the respondent is forthwith: (a) to arrange and pay for the testing of moisture levels within the ceiling concrete slab of Unit 18 (Slab) in the kitchen and bathroom areas to confirm that the condition of the concrete is acceptable for repairs; and (b) thereafter, and in light of the results of that testing, to carry out such further maintenance work as may be necessary or desirable in respect of the Slab not including painting work, unless the painting work is necessary because of other maintenance work required to be carried out.

……………………………….. Presidential Member M Hassall REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. The present matter is an application by the owner of a unit in Mawson, Australian Capital Territory (Unit 18), Ms Jillian Piza (Ms Piza), for a determination by this Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (UTM Act), that the owners corporation for Units Plan 269 (Owners Corporation) is liable to make repairs to her unit necessitated by a water leak which originated from the above unit (Unit 20) in the same complex.

2. The Owners Corporation is the respondent to the proceedings. The owner of Unit 20, Ms Emma Hazell (Ms Hazell), is also a party, having been joined at the request of the Owners Corporation. The matter proceeded by way of hearing before me on 18 August 2026. Ms Piza represented herself. Mr Robens of counsel appeared on behalf of the Owners Corporation. Mr Shukla, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of Ms Hazell.

Factual background 3. The factual background is relatively straightforward and mostly not contested. In April 2024, having recently purchased Unit 18, Ms Piza commenced kitchen renovations which included removing some cupboards. The removal of those cupboards exposed evidence of water ingress to the kitchen ceiling of Unit 18, being the soffit of a load-bearing concrete slab separating Unit 18 from Unit 20. Ms Piza reported the issue to a representative of the Owners Corporation, who in turn reported it to a real estate agent responsible for managing Unit 20 on behalf of the owner, Ms Hazell. Ms Hazell carried out a series of investigations aimed at identifying the cause of the water leak: some re-grouting of bathroom tiles was undertaken, silicone was re-applied, and later a hot water unit was replaced, each without preventing the water ingress into Unit 18. Eventually, in October 2024, a plumber ascertained that a bath spout in the bathroom of Unit 20 had not been correctly threaded onto the pipe to which it was connected. The plumber re-threaded the bath spout, applied some silicone, and the leak stopped.

4. By that stage, however, water had been entering the kitchen of Unit 18 for about six months and had also been entering into the bathroom. At times, according to Ms Piza, water flowed through a Tastic light fitting in the bathroom. Eventually, the incoming water caused damage to a plasterboard ceiling suspended on a metal frame in the bathroom below the concrete slab.

5. In late 2024, Ms Piza commenced prompting the Owners Corporation to arrange a repair of the damage to her unit, or at least to clarify the issue of who was responsible for paying for the required repairs. Initially, Ms Piza was told that the water damage to Unit 18 was covered by the Owners Corporation’s insurance and that the relevant costs would be met by a claim on that policy. At a meeting in November 2025, however, the Owners Corporation Executive Committee expressed a view that the cost of repair to Unit 18 should instead be met by the owner of Unit 20.

6. Nonetheless, in January 2026 an insurance claim was lodged, and a contractor quoted a sum of $7,339.20 to repair the damage to Unit 18. The insurer subsequently advised that, although the damage was of a kind that was covered by the policy, because the cost as quoted was below the policy excess (being $10,000) the insurer would not respond to the claim.

Parties’ positions

7. Ms Piza argued that the Owners Corporation was liable for the cost of repairs to Unit 18 because the water leak from Unit 20 involved damage to “defined parts” of the building (for the maintenance of which the Owners Corporation was legally 1 2 responsible ), which in turn then caused damage to parts of Unit 18. Ms Piza also argued that the fact that the quoted cost of repair was below the excess for the relevant insurance policy did not alter the question of liability. Ms Piza did not press any claim against the third party, Ms Hazell.

8. The Owners Corporation opposed Ms Piza’s application on the basis that it asserted that the origin of the water leak was a part of the plumbing in Unit 20 solely the responsibility of the owner of that unit, Ms Hazell. Secondly, the

1 UTM Act, s 24(1), discussed further below. 2 As explained further below, Ms Piza’s argument is based on the decision of the Tribunal in Hicks v The Owners - Unit Plan No 94 [2023] ACAT 78. Owners Corporation denied both damage to any “defined part” of the building and any breach of its statutory obligation to maintain those “defined parts”.

9. Ms Hazell initially resisted being joined to the proceedings but once joined, argued that the water leak in question originated from common property which was not her responsibility.

Evidence

10. The parties provided a court book which became Exhibit 1 and which included: copies of correspondence between the parties; a copy of an insurance report; a witness statement of Ms Piza and attachments; a witness statement of Mr Pickering, the husband of the owner of Unit 20, Ms Hazell; an expert report by Sustainable Electrical Solutions dated 13 June 2026 (Sustainable Electrical Solutions Report) and an expert report entitled “Property Assessment Report” by Silver Wolf dated 17 June 2026 (Silver Wolf Report).

Provisions of the UTM Act and case law

11. The applicant’s claim was brought under the UTM Act. That Act imposes on the owners corporation for a units plan responsibility for a range of functions, one of which is responsibility for maintaining: (a) “common property”, as defined; (b) “defined parts” of any building forming part of the units plan and which contains class A units; and (c) facilities associated with the provision of utility services for the potential 3 benefit of all units, including utility conduits. 4

12. The “defined parts” of a building include load-bearing slabs. The slab which formed the ceiling of the kitchen for Unit 18 was load bearing, therefore a “defined part”, and therefore required to be “maintained” by the Owners Corporation.

3 UTM Act, s 24(1). 4 UTM Act, s 24(4)(a)(iv).

13. The UTM Act also requires an owners corporation to keep all buildings on the land insured for their replacement value against, among other things, “bursting, leaking and overflowing of boilers, water tanks, water pipes and associated 5 apparatus”. The Act provides that any claim for insurance in respect of damage 6 to a building in a units plan must be lodged by the owners corporation.

14. The scope of an owners corporation’s obligation to maintain property has been considered in a number of decisions of this Tribunal, including Castro v The Owners – Units Plan No 246 [2016] ACAT 111 (Castro); Hicks v The Owners – Units Plan No 94 [2023] ACAT 78 (Hicks); and The Owners – Units Plan 3704 v Moore [2025] ACAT 22 (Moore).

What property was damaged by the water leak?

15. This question was not contested (none of the authors of the three reports relied upon by the parties were sought to be cross-examined). Accordingly, I am satisfied of and find the following matters: (a) When the bath in the bathroom of Unit 20 was used, water leaked from the join between the bath spout and the external plumbing and then flowed down the external side of the bathroom wall of Unit 20 until it reached the load-bearing slab separating Unit 20 from Unit 18. (b) With time, the leaked water leached through the concrete slab into both the kitchen and bathroom ceilings of Unit 18. In the kitchen, this caused efflorescence, staining and damage to the ceiling paintwork. It did not cause any structural damage and did not cause a crack of less than 2 mm in width visible in some of the photographs of the kitchen ceiling area. (c) In the bathroom of Unit 18, the water which had leached through the concrete slab pooled on the upper side of the suspended plasterboard ceiling. Eventually, the pooled water caused the softening and sagging of the plasterboard, such that it now needs to be replaced. Due to the moist atmosphere, there was some mould growth in the cavity between the plasterboard and the slab.

5 UTM Act, s 100(1)(d). 6 UTM Act s 100A. (d) Although water flowed through the Tastic bathroom light fitting, no damage was caused to that fitting or to the bathroom electrics generally. Who bears responsibility for the damage caused by the water leak?

16. I am satisfied, on the evidence, that the source of the water which ultimately leaked into Unit 18 was the bath spout in the bathroom of Unit 20, which had not been correctly threaded onto the pipe to which it was connected. I am also satisfied that the owner of Unit 20, Ms Hazell, was unaware of the leak.

17. Ms Hazell argued that in such circumstances, regardless of whether the plumbing to which the bath spout was connected was common property, responsibility for the leak fell on the Owners Corporation because of section 24(1)(e) of the UTM Act. As I have noted above, that provision requires an Owners Corporation to maintain facilities associated with the provision of the utility services “including utility conduits”.

18. The scope of an Owners Corporation’s obligation under section 24(1)(e) was considered by the Tribunal in Moore, which at [131]-[132] observed that the obligation: … does not depend on whether the facilities in question are common property. The structure of the building may mean that such facilities are located partly in common property and partly in unit property. … The supply of hot and cold water is a ‘utility service’ and pipes for the supply of water are a ‘utility conduit’.

19. The problem for Ms Hazell is that section 24(1)(e) only applies to facilities associated with the provision of a utility service “for the potential benefit of all units” (emphasis added). This was a decisive consideration in each of Moore and Castro. In Moore, the Tribunal found that a leaking hot water control valve assembly was for the benefit only of the unit holder which it serviced. Its maintenance was therefore the responsibility of that unit holder, rather than the owners corporation. Similarly, in Castro the Tribunal found that electrical cables in a roof void, although physically located in an area which was common property, were nevertheless solely for the benefit of a particular unit holder and therefore did not enliven the maintenance obligation in section 24(1)(e).

20. In the present matter, it is beyond question that the plumbing pipe connected to the bath spout in Unit 20 was solely for the benefit of Unit 20. Further, the repairs required to stop the leak from the join between the bath spout and that pipe were able to be carried out in the bathroom in Unit 20, without accessing any external common property. In the circumstances, Ms Hazell’s arguments must be rejected.

21. Ms Piza also argued that the Owners Corporation’s maintenance obligation was engaged, but in relation to the load-bearing slab forming the ceiling of Unit 18 rather than the plumbing connected to the bath spout in Unit 20. In essence, Ms Piza argued that the concrete slab was damaged and there was then consequential damage to parts of her unit.

22. It appears that the concrete slab was porous. When water flowed down from the bath spout connection at Unit 20, it leached through the slab above Ms Piza’s kitchen and bathroom. Ms Piza did not argue in terms that the porousness of the slab evidenced a failure of maintenance on the part of the Owners Corporation (for example, because the slab ought to have been, but was not, treated with waterproofing), but did seem to argue that the leaching of water through the slab constituted a form of “disrepair” which then caused damage to parts of Unit 18.

23. Ms Piza placed heavy reliance on the following passage from the decision of the Tribunal in Hicks at [27]: A duty to maintain the common property includes taking steps to prevent the common property from falling into disrepair (acknowledging that disrepair may occur despite an adequate preventative regime), repairing the common property when it is in disrepair, and carrying out repairs of any damage to other property occurring as a result of disrepair in the common property… It is proper for a unit owner to ask for any damage to a unit to be repaired and the owners corporation must do so (if necessary in accordance with an order of the Tribunal to that effect under s 129(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act.

24. In Hicks, however, the source of water which caused damage to the applicant’s property was a leak in the roof which formed part of the common property of the relevant unit complex. That is not so in the present case, where the leak came from plumbing associated specifically with Unit 20.

25. In my view, the fact that water passed or leached through the load-bearing slab above Unit 18, by itself, does not evidence any breach of the Owners Corporation’s statutory duty under section 24(1)(d) of the UTM Act to “maintain” the slab, it being a “defined part” of a building on the relevant land containing class A units. I am also not satisfied that the need for repainting of the soffit of the slab in the kitchen of Unit 18 engaged the Owners Corporation’s obligation, given section 26(1), which provides: An owners corporation’s obligation under section 24(1)(d) to maintain the defined parts of a building containing class A units does not require the corporation to carry out any painting of a unit unless the painting is necessary because of other maintenance being carried out by the owners corporation.

26. Nothing more than painting work was required to remedy the effects of the water ingress into the kitchen ceiling. It is also conceded by Ms Piza in the present case that she was planning, and would have been required, to repaint the soffit which forms the underside of the concrete slab in the kitchen area as part of the renovations which she was undertaking. Accordingly, the Owners Corporation cannot be made liable for “repair” work required in the kitchen of Unit 18.

27. I am likewise not satisfied that the cost of repairing damage to the plasterboard ceiling in Ms Piza’s bathroom can be visited on the Owners Corporation. As I have indicated, my view is that the mere fact that water could and in fact did leach through the slab above the Unit 18 bathroom does not evidence a failure to maintain the slab on the part of the Owners Corporation.

28. That is not quite the end of the matter, however. A recommendation made in the Silver Wolf Report dated June 2026, adduced by Ms Piza, was that, prior to any other repair or repainting work being undertaken in Unit 18, “moisture levels within the Unit 18 ceiling slab about the kitchen and bathroom” should be tested “to confirm that the condition of the concrete is acceptable for repairs”. This seems a cautious approach, given it is approaching two years since the leak from the bath spout in Unit 20 was fixed, but as I have noted, the expert evidence relied on by the parties went entirely unchallenged.

29. Although the Owners Corporation was not responsible for the leak which caused the Unit 18 ceiling slab to become damp, in my view the testing of the slab moisture levels to determine whether it is in a condition “acceptable for repairs” would fall within the scope of the Owners Corporation’s obligation to “maintain” the slab. For that reason, given the unchallenged expert evidence, I will make an order pursuant to section 129(1)(c) of the UTM Act requiring the Owners Corporation to arrange and pay for the carrying out of testing of the moisture levels of the slab above the applicant’s kitchen and bathroom, as a precursor to the repairs which will need to be carried out on Unit 18. If those tests identify a need for further maintenance work relating specifically to the slab, which involve more than painting, it will be necessary for the Owners Corporation to undertake that maintenance work as well.

What is the significance of the insurance company accepting that the damage to Unit 18 was of a kind covered by the relevant policy?

30. The insurer of the Owners Corporation advised that, but for the amount of the relevant claim falling below the excess, the cost of repairing the damage to Unit 18 would have been covered by the policy held by the Corporation. This point was emphasised both by Ms Piza and Ms Hazell, each of whom submitted, in effect, that it must follow that the Owners Corporation is legally liable to meet the cost of the required repairs.

31. That approach is syllogistic. Under section 100(1)(d) of the UTM Act, the Owners Corporation is obliged to have a policy covering all buildings on the land, up to their replacement value, for damage caused by (among other things) “leaking … water pipes and associated apparatus”. Section 100 does not distinguish between damage caused to common property and damage caused to other parts of the buildings. The obligation to maintain insurance in respect of water damage to buildings generally does not mean, however, that the Owners Corporation is liable to reimburse an individual unit owner for water damage caused to their unit. That question, in my view, rather depends on whether the damage results from a breach of the Owners Corporation’s maintenance obligation under section 24. In the present matter I have found that not to be the case. Is the Owners Corporation entitled to seek contribution from Ms Hazell?

32. A question arises as to whether the Owners Corporation is entitled to seek some form of contribution from the owner of Unit 20, Ms Hazell, in relation to what will be the cost incurred in testing the moisture levels of the slab in question.

33. I am not today ordering the Owners Corporation to pay any specific amount, but rather to arrange and pay for the cost of moisture testing. An amount which at this stage is unknown will be expended at some point in the future. Section 31 of the UTM Act permits an Owners Corporation to recover from a unit owner the amount of an expense which has been “incurred”. So far as the proposed moisture testing is concerned, therefore, section 31 is not yet engaged and accordingly does not need to be the subject of any ruling by me today.

34. Nonetheless, without expressing a final view, it seems to follow from what I have found in relation to the cause of the leak, and the reasoning of the Tribunal in Moore, that in due course the Owners Corporation will be entitled to recover from Ms Hazell the cost of carrying out the moisture testing. As noted by the Tribunal in Moore, the obligation of an owners corporation under rule 1.3(1) of the default 7 rules is to ‘ensure’ that the unit is kept in a good state of repair, which in substance is an obligation of strict liability. It is not necessary to show that a unit owner knew or ought to have known that part of their unit was not in a good state of repair.

35. In the present case, that reasoning would lead to the result, even though arguably harsh that, even though Ms Hazell had no reason to know about the bath spout leak and conscientiously investigated and remedied the leak as soon as she was able to, Ms Hazell nevertheless breached the default rules within the meaning of section 31(1)(a) of the UTM Act.

Orders 1. Pursuant to section 129(1)(c) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (UTM Act), the respondent is forthwith:

7 See Unit Titles (Management) Regulation 2011 at r 7A, Sch 1. (a) to arrange and pay for the testing of moisture levels within the ceiling concrete slab of Unit 18 (Slab) in the kitchen and bathroom areas to confirm that the condition of the concrete is acceptable for repairs; and (b) thereafter, and in light of the results of that testing, to carry out such further maintenance work as may be necessary or desirable in respect of the Slab not including painting work, unless the painting work is necessary because of other maintenance work required to be carried out.

2. The respondent is to pay the applicant $189 within 28 days, comprising the ACAT filing fee.

3. The application lodged on 30 January 2026 is otherwise dismissed.

4. The respondent is to lodge with the Tribunal and serve on the third party by 11 September 2026 any evidence and submissions in support of an application by the respondent for reimbursement of expenses of the kind referred to in section 31(1) of the UTM Act relating to legal costs incurred in these proceedings.

5. The third party is to lodge with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent by 25 September 2026 any evidence and submissions opposing the application by the respondent for reimbursement of expenses of the kind referred to in paragraph [4].

……………………………….. Presidential Member M Hassall

Date of hearing: 18 August 2026 Applicant: In person Counsel for the Respondent: David Robens Solicitor for the Third Party: Chetan Shukla, Barry Nilsson Lawyers