//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACAT 44
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2026-07-22
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (www.acat.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SCHMIDT v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 4693 & ANOR (Unit Titles) [2026] ACAT 44 UT 22/2026 Catchwords: UNIT TITLES – application for orders mandating operational changes dismissed on the basis of findings that respondents did not act negligently – Unit Titles Management Act 2011 does not provide for an order for costs incurred by the owners corporation against an occupant who is not member of the units corporation and where the member is not a party to the proceeding
Legislation cited: Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 s 31
Tribunal: Senior Member J Francis
Date of Orders: 15 July 2026 Date of Reasons for Decision: 15 July 2026 Date of Publication: 22 July 2026 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) UT 22/2026
BETWEEN: BRODY SCHMIDT Applicant AND: THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 4693 First Respondent VANTAGE STRATA PTY LIMITED Second Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member J Francis DATE: 15 July 2026
ORDER The Tribunal orders that:
The application is dismissed.
The first respondent’s cross claim for an order under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 is dismissed.
……………………………….. Senior Member J Francis REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This matter was jointly heard with XD 1350 of 2025, Schmidt v Vantage Strata and the Owners Units Plan 4693 in which Mr Schmidt (the applicant) sought compensation from Vantage Strata Pty Ltd ACN 602 359 482 and The Owners – Unit Plan 4693 (the respondents) for (among other things) the value of their motorbike stolen from the unit complex in which they were an occupant. The first respondent is the owners corporation (the first respondent) established under the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (Unit Titles (Management) Act) for units plan 4693. Vantage Strata Pty Ltd ACN 602 359 482 (the second respondent) was engaged by the first respondent to provide strata management and building management services to assist it to discharge its functions under the Unit Titles (Management) Act.
In that proceeding, the first respondent was named as the second respondent, and the second respondent was named as the first respondent. Relevantly, I decided that there was no evidence that the second respondent was negligent in their review of the CCTV footage. It was not necessary to consider the role of the first respondent and whether the footage was or was not common property.
These reasons should be read with the reasons in XD 1350 of 2025.
For the same reasons that I dismissed the allegation that the respondents were negligent in the review and storage or deletion of the CCTV footage, I dismiss the application in this matter for: (a) A declaration that the first respondent failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in administration of common property, specifically in preservation and review of the CCTV footage following lawful request by the police. (b) A declaration that the second respondent in its capacity as managing agent for the first respondent acted unreasonably and failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence by: (i) Conditioning provision of CCTV footage, where lawfully requested by police, pursuant to an ongoing investigation, upon payment by an occupant; and (ii) Indicating to police that no CCTV footage could be provided prior to properly reviewing the CCTV footage. (c) A direction that, within 60 days of the direction, the respondents implement a written CCTV footage preservation policy. (d) A direction that, within 60 days of the direction, the respondents implement a written protocol that prevents production of CCTV footage being conditional on payment of a fee if the request for the footage is made by the police. (e) A direction that, within 60 days of the direction, the respondents implement a written protocol that the owner and managing agent of the CCTV system are, if there is a police request for review, responsible for that review and a person be elected and appropriately trained to carry out reviews; and (f) A direction that, within 60 days of the direction, the respondents implement a written protocol preventing fees having the effect of impeding police requests for CCTV footage review.
The application appears to be anchored as considerations for the respondents for policy improvements for operations. As recorded in my reasons for XD 1350 of 2025, I am not satisfied that the respondents were negligent. I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of relevant legal standards.
I have also decided to dismiss the first respondent’s application for an order under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act for compensation for legal costs incurred in defending the application. Even if I were to decide that that section applies because the first respondent incurred legal expenses because of the wilful or negligent act the applicant (an occupier of a member’s unit) the effect is that cost of the work is recoverable by the owners corporation from the member as a debt. The member is not a party to these proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make an order for recovery against the occupant.
Orders 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The first respondent’s cross claim for an order under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 is dismissed. ……………………………….. Senior Member J Francis
Date of hearing: 11 May 2026 Applicant: In Person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Develin Solicitors for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Game Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Thomsons
SCHMIDT
THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 4693 & ANOR (Unit Titles)