1. Mr Reeves filed this proceeding to seek enforcement of the Owners Corporation's Model Rules 3.1(1) and 3.2. He complains that Ms Clark has breached, and in effect threatens unless restrained to continue to breach, those Rules by placing on common property an outdoor table and two chairs, and by permitting visitors to park cars on the common property driveway.

1. In Part 2 of his Application's annexure "Document GR-01" Mr Reeves also described some possible scenarios and asked the Tribunal to rule on them. The Tribunal cannot give advisory opinions but I trust that these Reasons may go some way to assisting the parties to identify the parameters of acceptable behaviour.

1. Mr and Mrs Reeves reside in Lot 1, which is at the front of the block, and Ms Clark resides in Lot 2 at the rear. The common property is a driveway of about 30 metres in length, which with landscaping is not perfectly straight.

1. Both parties' double garages are to the side of the driveway, so that the driver must 'swing into' their garage.

1. Mr and Mrs Reeves park two cars in their garage. So that there is enough room to open the drivers' doors, Mrs Reeves drives into the garage and parks on the left side, which is closest to the street. Mr Reeves reverses his car into the garage and parks on the right side. This means of course that Mrs Reeves reverses out, towards Ms Clark's home, before driving out of the driveway. Mr Reeves simply drives out of the driveway.

1. It is more convenient for Mr Reeves to drive into the driveway, position his car close to Ms Clark's home, and then reverse into the garage from there. Reversing in from the street would not be a practical alternative.

1. The outdoor furniture is against the front wall of Ms Clark's home. The cars have been parked near the rear end of the driveway, outside Ms Clark's home. It is not alleged that people have been parking at the front of the driveway, blocking access from the street.

1. This is an unfortunate dispute. Mr Reeves, his wife and Ms Clark are the only occupants of the two lot subdivision. They are all retired. Mr Reeves is aggrieved at what he sees as flagrant disregard for his rights, whilst Ms Clark's experience of Mr Reeves' behaviour is that she is harassed and disrespected.

1. Mr Reeves wants certainty and Ms Clark wants some give and take.

1. As I said in the hearing, there is a philosophical difference between rules (and sources of obligation such as contracts and legislation) which are proscriptive, and those that are directed to the nature or quality of the subject matter. It can be a value judgment as to which form is "best". In the former class are rules that ban the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes, and which prohibit motorists from proceeding through a 'stop' sign. Model Rules 3.1(1) and 3.2(b) are in the latter class.

(1) An owner or occupier of a lot must not obstruct the lawful use and enjoyment of the common property by any other person entitled to use the common property.

An owner or occupier of a lot must not, unless in the case of an emergency, park or leave a motor vehicle or other vehicle or permit a motor vehicle or other vehicle -

(b) on the common property so as to obstruct a driveway, pathway, entrance or exit to a lot; [emphasis added].

1. These Rules are not proscriptive because of the words "obstruct" and "emergency".

1. Rule 3.1(1) does not prohibit a lot owner from washing their car on the driveway, or from leaving their car on the driveway when, for example, the other lot owner is away on vacation. It prohibits obstruction by one lot owner or occupant of another. Whether a person is obstructed is a question of fact.

1. Rule 3.2(b) actually allows one lot owner to obstruct another in an "emergency". That word must be defined objectively: it might be legitimate for a plumber to leave their vehicle in the driveway while repairing a dangerous hot water service in one of the lots, but not to remain parked in the driveway to watch a football telecast after the repair was made. In the absence of an emergency, Rule 3.2(b) only prohibits obstruction of a lot owner.

1. There must be actual obstruction. There is no theoretical obstruction: a rule is not breached if a lot owner thinks, "I'm not intending to go out today but if I was I would be inconvenienced".

1. In the absence of an emergency, however, Rule 3.2(c) is proscriptive. It says:

An owner or occupier of a lot must not, unless in the case of an emergency, park or leave a motor vehicle or other vehicle or permit a motor vehicle or other vehicle -

(c) in any place other than a parking area situated on common property specified for that purpose by the owners corporation.

1. That is, lot owners and occupants must not park or leave their vehicle in any place on common property, other than a designated parking space. There are no designated parking spaces in this property. Rule 3.2(c) does not concern itself with whether a lot owner is 'obstructed'. It simply prohibits parking on common property. Rule 3.2(c) does not apply to outdoor furniture.

1. The concepts of "leaving" a vehicle and "parking" a vehicle are distinct. That is why the Rules separate the two words with "or".

1. The Road Safety Road Rules 2009 distinguish between "parking", "standing" and "stopping" (see for example Road Safety Road Rules 167 and 168, and the different signs "No Parking" and "No Standing" in Schedule 3).

1. Under Rule 168 of those Rules, one must not stop -

"in an area to which a 'no parking sign' applies, unless the driver -

(a) is dropping off, or picking up, passengers or goods; and

1. However under Rule 167, one must not stop "on a length of road or in an area to which a 'no stopping sign' applies". A "No Standing" sign is such a sign. There is no "unless".

1. The Road Safety Road Rules are of assistance in interpreting the Owners Corporation's Model Rules. Parking a car means leaving it unattended, and does not include dropping off, or picking up, passengers or goods.

1. In the context of the Model Rules, a lot owner does not "leave" their vehicle if they are washing it. Similarly, the act of dropping off, or picking up, passengers (including lot owners) or goods without leaving the vehicle unattended does not amount to "parking".

1. Mr Reeves complains that the vehicles which have been in the driveway from time to time since the Reeves and Ms Clark began occupying their Lots in 2006 obstruct him.

1. However, it is clear on the evidence that there have been very few occasions over the 5 years when a vehicle in any way connected with Ms Clark has literally prevented Mr Reeves from entering or exiting the property. His complaint is that he is inconvenienced in his preferred course of reversing his car into his double garage. Mr Reeves says that it has been impossible for him to reverse into his garage on some occasions. I am not convinced of this. There is a vast difference between having to park a bit more carefully than one would like, and being obstructed.

1. Evidence was given of an occasion when Mr Reeves returned home at 11.00pm, to find a car parked near Ms Clark's home. Ms Clark said she thought the Reeves were asleep and would not be inconvenienced. Mr Reeves sounded the horn and shouted. Ms Clark's guest moved the car. I am not sure that this incident amounts to "obstruction". It would be another matter if Ms Clark's home was empty and no-one was there to move the car, or if its owner refused to do so.

1. Mr Reeves produced a list of 17 persons whom he alleges have had cars in the driveway since 2006. Ms Clark did not deny the truth of the list, though she was disconcerted at the thought that Mr Reeves was interviewing and photographing her invitees.

1. Mr Reeves' list included 4 occasions prior to 2009, and 6 occasions involving tradesmen (such as curtain installers and carpet layers) whose visits by their nature would be infrequent. On the evidence these tradesmen were dropping off goods, such as curtains, and they were working in Ms Clark's home. They were not leaving their vehicles unattended.

1. That leaves 7 "offenders", as Mr Reeves described them, over a 5 year period, at least one of whom was washing Ms Clark's car. Ms Clark gave evidence that at her request her friends no longer leave their car in the driveway and that they had only ever done so when she believed the Reeves would not be obstructed.

1. Both parties regretted that they seemed unable to agree on what to do. Both wanted the Tribunal to direct them. Mr Reeves wanted Orders which would define conduct that would be in breach of the Rules, but of course that cannot be done because the Tribunal cannot give advisory opinions, and the Tribunal can make Orders to enforce Rules but it cannot invent its own Rules. There is a limit to the degree of certainty that neighbours can have.

1. In the hearing we discussed the fact that neighbours could reach "gentlemens' agreements", with which they could agree to comply even when recognising that they were not 'enforceable'. One would imagine that these retired parties might identify, say, a particular morning or afternoon as the time when the washing of Ms Clark's car would be the least likely to prevent Mr Reeves from reversing into his garage. Or Mr Reeves might volunteer, at least during 'daylight saving', to use his parking lights when driving towards Ms Clark's home rather than the headlights which shine into Ms Clark's bedroom.

1. Turning to the issues raised by Mr Reeves in "Document GR-01", I say the following.

1. The parties must comply with Model Rules 3.1(1) and 3.2, in accordance with their terms. That is the effect of the law.

1. At the date of the hearing, there is no extant breach by Ms Clark of those Rules, and I am not satisfied on the evidence that she threatens unless restrained to continue to breach those Rules. For that reason I make no Order against Ms Clark in relation to motor vehicles belonging to her or connected to her invitees.

1. As to the outdoor table and two chairs, I would make no Order. First, Mr Reeves produced some photographs which show these small items of metal furniture are situated very close to the front of Ms Clark's home. I do not find that Rule 3.1 has been broken because those items do not obstruct Mr Reeves. He would have to go out of his way to be inconvenienced by those items.

1. Mr Reeves said that when people use the furniture, the items tend to be spread out. But of course, when the items are used Mr Reeves can ask the people using them to move, if they are obstructing him.

1. In any event, during the hearing Ms Clark undertook to take the furniture away, which is an example of how neighbours can cooperate.

1. As to the future, I repeat that the Tribunal cannot give advisory opinions. In relation to questions raised in Part 2 of Mr Reeves' "Document GR-01", I would make two observations.

1. Washing a vehicle is not leaving a vehicle unattended. If a vehicle was washed, and left in the driveway unattended, and objectively it obstructed another Lot owner, Model Rules 3.1(1) and 3.2(b) would be breached. Depending on the length of time that the vehicle was left unattended after being washed, Rule 3.2(c) might be breached. It is a question of degree and ultimately neighbours need to be reasonable.

1. Mr Reeves' somewhat rhetorical suggestion that permitting a vehicle to be on common property "for any period" to collect a lot owner be declared to be a breach of the Rules is overly proscriptive and unworkable. A driveway is not a freeway. At the point when Mr Reeves is reversing into his garage, he could be obstructing Ms Clark. Model Rules 3.1(1) and 3.2(b) are not breached in cases of emergency, nor where another lot owner is not obstructed. The scenario of a lot owner being collected is not suggestive of a vehicle being parked or left in breach of Rule 3.2(c).