The Owners - Strata Plan No. 6522 v Sullivan

Evidence before the Tribunal

1. The applicant relied on two statements of Mr Nicholas Amoroso respectively dated 11 August and 24 August 2022. Mr Amoroso is an employee of Jamesons & Associates Unit Services Pty Ltd trading as Jamesons Strata Management (JSM). He is the general manager of the Dee Why office of JSM, which is the strata managing agent of the Owners Corporation.
2. The Sullivans rely on a statement of Mr Sullivan dated 30 August 2022 and the various attachments to that statement.
3. Based on those documents I make the following relevant findings for the purposes of this interlocutory decision.
4. On 6 July 2020, Mr Sullivan discussed renovations to his lot (being lot 31) with Mr Amoroso. Mr Amoroso provided him the contact details of the Owners Corporation's structural engineer, JN, and its plumber, East Coast Plumbing.
5. On 30 July 2020, JN provided a structural assessment report for the removal of the wall between the laundry and bathroom.
6. Sometime prior to August 2020, in discussing the proposed renovations with Mr Amoroso, Mr Amoroso advised Mr Sullivan that a by-law would be required which would need to be prepared by a solicitor. Mr Amoroso gave Mr Sullivan the contact details of Mr Colin Cunio, of Strata Specialist Lawyers, who was the Owners Corporation's preferred solicitor for the preparation of such by-laws.
7. Mr Sullivan was advised that he could either engage Mr Cunio to prepare the by-law, or have the by-law prepared by a solicitor of his choice, in which case the by-law would be reviewed by Mr Cunio at his cost. Mr Sullivan elected to use Mr Cunio.
8. On 18 August 2020, Mr Amoroso contacted Mr Cunio to prepare a by-law for the renovation works.
9. On 1 September 2020, Mr Cunio provided him with the proposed by-law.
10. On 21 October 2020, Mr Sullivan sent a copy of the proposed by-law and to Mr Amoroso.
11. Between (at least) 4 November 2020 and 16 December 2020, Mr Sullivan liaised with Mr Amoroso regarding the status of the by-law, its terms and conditions, and the nature of the works.
12. One of the emails, sent from Mr Amoroso to Mr Sullivan on 4 November 2020, relevantly states: … further work is required by the owner with the Owners Corporations plumbers, also what is happening with the pipes in the walls of the bathroom. and 6. At the end of this the by-law might need a revamp the Owner will need to refer the final renovation to the lawyer to confirm the by-law covers all aspects of the renovation. (emphasis added)
13. Another email from Mr Cunio to Mr Sullivan, dated 1 September 2020, relevantly states: Please find attached two draft motions for the consideration of the Owners Corporation in relation to the work you propose to carry out. The first motion seeks to authorise you to carry out work which affects the common property. The second motion seeks to make a by-law setting out the conditions of authorisation including a requirement that you be responsible for the future maintenance of the common property affected by the works. I have also attached the engineers letter and two drawings, which should form an exhibit to the notice or minutes of the meeting where the motions are resolved. Please read through the by-law very carefully and contact me if you do not understand any part of the by-law or if you have any changes to make. I have drafted the by-law from the point of view of the Owners Corporation and similar to other by-law they have usually required are made in relation to owners' renovations. … (b) You and Kristen must provide your consent to the making of the by-law. I have attached a consent form for you and Kristen to fill in and sign and hand to the secretary before the motion to make the by-law is considered. 2. Once a special resolution is passed, the by-law can be registered. The bylaw must be registered within six months of being passed. If you are satisfied with the contents of the motions, please sign the consent form and send the motions to your strata together with the exhibit and a request for their inclusion in the next general meeting of the Owners Corporation.
14. Mr Sullivan understood that the strata committee was reviewing the proposed by-law and considering the proposed works and responding to Mr Cunio via Mr Amoroso.
15. In Mr Amoroso's email of 4 November 2020, he relayed questions from the strata committee concerning structural concerns and plumbing redirection.
16. On 24 November 2020, Mr Sullivan responded to Mr Amoroso by addressing the strata committee's concerns, relevantly including matters of pipe relocation.
17. On 14 May 2021, an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the Owners Corporation was held. The motions and by-law prepared by Mr Cunio were passed at that meeting by way of special resolution.
18. On or around 7 June 2021, the by-law (Special By-Law 52) was registered.
19. Special By-Law 52 states: 52 Unit 31 Marina (Lot 31) - Renovations 1. 1. The Owners Corporation has given authority pursuant s.108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 to the owner lot 31 ("the owner"), to add to, to alter and to erect new structures on the common property, by undertaking: (a) The removal of a wall between the bathroom and laundry and the creation of an open plan bathroom with concealed laundry, in accordance with the report of Maria Batman dated 30 July 2020 (3 pages) and drawings (2 pages), copies of which form an exhibit to the notice of the meeting at which this by-law was made; and (b) Such other works as are necessary for the safe and lawful undertaking of the works referred to in paragraph (a). 2. After the completion of the authorised works referred to in clause 1, the owner will be responsible, at their own expense, for the ongoing maintenance of the alterations and additions to the common property, and the new structures on the common property, made in the course of the authorised works. 3. The authorisation of the Owners Corporation and this by-law is subject to the Schedule of Conditions.
20. Between June 2021 and June 2022, the commencement of the works was delayed due to Mr Sullivan's workload running his business during the COVID lockdowns, "coupled with 'locking in'" a builder for the works.
21. Between 14 July 2022 and 25 July 2022, Mr Sullivan liaised with Mr Amoroso regarding the renovation works.
22. On 14 July 2022, Mr Sullivan emailed Mr Amoroso notifying him that the renovation work was about to begin, attaching a "rough floor plan layout". His email relevantly stated: As discussed, we're getting moving with the renovation with our bathroom, and as per the engineers report that was approved, we'll be removing the laundry wall and redesigning the layout of the bathroom - crude layout attached for reference. My question is whether we can chase new services into the external and/or internal walls, be it water or electrical, as Matt from East Coast was quite certain that we weren't allowed to but that was never brought up nor mentioned in the engineers report we'd have to pack out walls to cater for services as that changes things a bit, so l'Il have to lean on you as to who we need to double check with. (emphasis added)
23. On or around 15 July 2022, Mr Sullivan met "Matt" from East Coast Plumbing on site, where they discussed how to redirect the waste stack. He also spoke with Mr O'Brien from JN, and after discussions, they were both in agreement that the best way to redirect the laundry waste stack was via the existing wall penetration at the top of the laundry wall.
24. On 16 July 2022, Mr Sullivan emailed Mr Amoroso relaying a conversation he had had with JN and East Coast Plumbing that they agreed that the waste stack should be relocated through the existing air vent penetration. Mr Sullivan relevantly stated: … the unanimous verdict is that the waste stack getting relocated through the laundry wall is the best option for all involved. The only hiccup is we'll need urgent review and approval from the Owner's Corporation. I've attached photos of the external wall where the pipe would be installed, … I've also attached 2 links to view marked up photos of where we'd look to install a new waste pipe which you can view here & here, and also marked up where l'd like to have a penetration done for an exhaust fan for the bathroom as looking at the external laundry wall there is already an existing penetration we can repurpose for the waste pipe that needs to come outside. We cannot postpone works unfortunately, I've already organised a very rigid timeline of works, including all required trades, materials, and alternative accommodation while we're without a bathroom and also I have an incredibly rising workload with my business so I cannot afford to reschedule everything and suffer time delays and the fiscal delays also. (emphasis added)
25. Mr Amoroso understood from that email and the attached photos that Mr Sullivan intended to drill two holes through the external wall of Lot 31, which Mr Amoroso understood was a structural wall.
26. Mr Amoroso responded on 18 July 2022 stating: I have spoken to Matt, awaiting formal advice from him, then we will need to get JN involved here to ensure the works can occur from a structural point of view. I need these in writing from them to present to the Strata Committee. Also this will definitely need a By-Law given the circumstances here, the new structural holes, the pipework inside from where it comes out to where it joins to but can discuss that later. (emphasis added)
27. Later that day Mr Amoroso emailed Mr Sullivan stating: Might be too early to tell but three SC members have said no already, chances are they will not approve the pipe work to be done on the outside of the building. Sorry to give you the bad news, which I will confirm when I get a few more responses but at this stage, it's not a maybe no, it's a definite no from some SC members.
28. Later that day Mr Sullivan asked: OK in forecasting this outcome, what are my avenues to appeal the decision should be a majority no? As these works need to happen. That wall already has other conduits in services show in my pictures which I'll be pretty adamant are pipe will not be impacting on the walls looks in that way, and also you can't see that wall unless you either down behind the building or looking down especially at it.
29. On 19 July 2022, Mr Amoroso emailed Mr Sullivan to advise that the strata committee were opposed to the waste stack being redirected externally. Mr Amoroso said in his email: More SC members emailed in and again voted no. The main reason is the significant change to the sewer which is a integral part of the building. Also regarding a pipe that will be external which will be an issue when the façade project kicks off. The only way to really do this properly is to get a By-law, put it to the Owners Corporation for their consideration. I would have doubts that it will be approved there to be honest but it is the avenue you will need to take. The Strata Committee is a shortcut but technically not the right process to take but if they endorse it, it generally gets the tick form the owners. Sorry Daniel, I suggest either finding another way, or postponing until the general meeting is held to have the owners consider. (emphasis added)
30. On 21 July 2022, Mr Sullivan emailed Mr Amoroso reiterating that the Owners Corporation's preferred structural engineer and plumber had advised him that the preferred approach was to externally redirect the pipework. Mr Sullivan also requested an urgent meeting with members of the strata committee and invited them to attend the lot to inspect the work and inspect the location of the existing penetration. This was a lengthy email and relevantly Mr Sullivan stated: 1. We've spent considerable time, money and effort to get these works designed, by-laws drafted up, engineer reports written up, for which we used 300ABC's preferred engineer being JN Engineering to streamline the Process, a process which we started in July 2020 and had the by-law drafted and passed, which it was in March 2027 - almost a year and half ago, in accordance with the engineers report by Maria Batman of JN Engineering. I could've selected to engage my own engineering firm as we have engineering firms we work with on projects, but wanted to streamline the process and keep the strata committee at ease that the reports were from a firm who were familiar with the building and the Strata Committee were comfortable with. 2. The by-law passed involved removing the laundry wall, and subsequently all services in it which being a laundry, which would logically include services including electrical & plumbing. Leaving the plumbing in-situ, in the middle of the room where the waste pipe is, was never a logical option and never mentioned in any of the correspondence nor in the by-law. If the Strata Committee did not realise this would be works carried out, then that is unfortunate in their lack of foresight or understanding of the scope of works, but not a result of us not communicating succinctly the scope of works of what we were doing nor it being implied in the by-law drafted up in Items 1, (a) or (b). … 6. The Strata Committee have unfairly and without good reason rejected this plan, which as I can see is based on their lack of understanding on how little of an impact this is going to have on a) the buildings sewer plumbing as they've mentioned and, b) the external façade of the building given there are already plumbing and electrical conduits/pipes externally on the building, that will also need to be managed with the façade upgrade project, if happens. This unreasonable rejection is having a serious impact on our project timeline, fiscal impact on our budget and causing undue stress. Following on from this, I request an urgent meeting with individual or multiple parties from the SC here onsite to inspect the location of the works we're set to commence, and the location of the penetration for the plumbing pipe to connect up to the waste infrastructure point so I can show them the scope of works and also explain to them in detail how little of an impact this will have on the buildings sewer and how it's the only way it's able to be relocated. This meeting needs to occur by week's end at the latest, as I've delayed my builder a week and already risk incurring delay costs, but works are set to commence this coming Monday 25th july as I cannot afford to delay works any longer, so we need to collectively reach a resolution on this matter urgently. Following this meeting, the SC need to immediately rethink their position on voting no to these works, as these works need to happen to avoid this becoming a bigger problem that it needs to be, or this matter escalating. I'd also like to stress to the committee, these works were approved in March 2021, with no stipulation about seeking further approvals from the SC on works involving services relocation and as per the by-law drafted up which was approved by the committee. (emphasis added)
31. Mr Amoroso advised by way of reply that day that he had forwarded that correspondence to the strata committee. He also informed Mr Sullivan that the strata committee members that had sent in their responses in so far did not which to change their view on the matter, and: Whilst it is not a majority view yet, we are one off and is likely to be the same. … That being the case and I will confirm when I hear from majority, the carry out [of] the relocation of the sewer pipe will need to seek Owners Corporation approval which is the correct method anyway. if you like I can assist with you for this process.
32. Mr Sullivan replied later that day asking: What is the timeline for seeking Owners Corp approval? We're starting works Monday, and this won't be delayed So what avenues do we have available to expedite this, this mustn't be the first time an instance like this has arisen and needed to be dealt with outside the regular meeting intervals?
33. Mr Amoroso's response was: I am currently drafting an Extraordinary General Meeting agenda now, if you can get me the By-law, drawings/specifications etc.. asap, I can add that to the notice. I had in mind to issue this week but can carry it over to next week. From there, a requirement of 3 weeks notice for the Owners to receive, vote and be minuted. If unable to meet that deadline, we also have an AGM coming up shortly after which we can tack the details on that meeting. To answer your question if something like this has occurred in the past, not to my knowledge and this change is quite significant to the previously approved proposed works. (emphasis added)
34. On 25 July 2022, Mr O'Sullivan send an email to Mr Amoroso relevantly stating: … we've clearly run out of avenues to take with the Strata Committee to reach a reasonable and amicable resolution to the works that are necessary for the safe and lawful undertaking of the works set out in the by-law passed authorising us to remove the wall between the laundry and bathroom to create an open plan bathroom with concealed laundry, as I feel we've done more than enough to placate the SC's concerns, but have had little to no efforts in return from the SC and so moving forward our efforts shall cease and we shall begin to focus on our renovations that are approved and have been in planning for some time and have already been delayed by this matter and caused us fiscal impact and unnecessary anxiety. We've attempted on numerous occasions as per the below mall thread to offer workable solutions that have collectively been arrived at by a licenced plumber being the building's in East Coast Plumbing, a certified engineer in JN Engineering in Owen O'Brien, of which the engineers report of his colleague Maria Batman from JN Engineering was submitted with the by-law for the scope of works, and also myself, a licenced electrician who runs a business specialising in electrical and communications infrastructure. From our discussions, although I've not been privy to the direct responses of the SC, it's clear that the SC have unreasonably, irrationally and ignorantly rejected the planned works we have collectively put forward to redirect the waste pipe for the laundry waste, through a small existing penetration with a small 6-foot piece of 100mm waste pipe to be then connected up to the nearby waste connection point in the garden bed. As per attached photos from where the pipe will be located, there are no less than 3 similar pipes to the right, and 2 to the left. Their lack of understanding of the safety in the works to the plumbing infrastructure and their lack or reasoning with us, has delayed us already but we'll not be suffering these delays any longer and the works will be progressing with works required to remove the wall and redirect the services we've located as we've progressed with the works to remove the wall, which is covered under item (b) of our by-law. These works are to safely redirect the waste stack for the units above, as per AS/NZS standards and best practices for alterations to existing plumbing infrastructure, and are covered under item (b) of our by-law as confirmed by independent legal advice. As per the by-law we had drafted up and which was approved, we're authorised to undertake (a) removal of the wall between the bathroom and laundry and; (b) such other works as are necessary for the safe and lawful undertaking of these works referred to in paragraph (a) for which these works are covered under. As I outlined in our discussion on Friday 22-7-2022, I've sought independent legal advice as to the current situation and given our correspondence to date including the by-law to them for review, and so should this matter go down the legal path for resolution of which I hope it doesn't - I know exactly where we stand. … (emphasis added)
35. On 24 August 2022, Mr O'Brien emailed Mr Sullivan his structural opinions in relation to the redirection of the waste stack.
36. On 25 August 2022, Mr O'Brien sent Mr Sullivan a further email in response to proposed alternative means of redirecting the waste stack.

Submissions of the Owners Corporation

1. In summary, the Owners Corporation makes the following principal submissions.
2. The Owners Corporation accepts that by Special By-Law 52 the Sullivans were granted approval under s 108 of the SSMA to carry out works to add to, alter or erect new structures on common property. Those works included the removal of a wall between the bathroom and laundry of Lot 31 and such other works as are necessary for the safe and lawful removal of the wall.
3. The approved works did not include removing a stack and waste pipe within the stack adjacent to the wall.
4. The Sullivans commenced works pursuant to Special By-Law 52 on 25 July 2022. In the course of carrying out the works, the Sullivans removed the wall between the bathroom and laundry of Lot 31.
5. On 10 August 2022, the Sullivans' contractors began digging a trench outside Lot 31 in preparation for relocating the waste pipe within the stack to the external wall of Lot 31, on common property. The Sullivans, by an email of 25 July 2022 to the strata manager, indicated that they believed relocating the waste pipe to an external wall of Lot 31 had been approved by special by-law 52.
6. Special By-Law 52 contains no such approval.
7. Interim orders are sought in circumstances where the Sullivans contend that they have been authorised to remove a stack and waste pipe and relocate it to an external wall of Lot 31 when it is apparent from the by-law and reports and drawings referred to in the by-law and considered by Sullivans at the time of making the by-law, that the stack and waste pipe were not to be altered, removed or relocated.
8. The waste pipe services Lots 31 and Lots 33, 35, 37 and 39 which are immediately above Lot 31.
9. The waste pipe and stack comprise common infrastructure within the meaning of s 4 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW).
10. Changes to common property require prior approval of the Owners Corporation: SSMA, s 108.
11. Section 111 of the SSMA prohibits an owner carrying out work that affects common property unless authorised by the Owners Corporation.
12. The Sullivans have not proposed a motion for a by-law under ss 108 or 143 of the SSMA to re-locate the stack and waste pipe and the Owners Corporation has not authorised the Sullivans to move or relocate the stack and/or waste pipe.

Submissions of the Sullivans

1. The Sullivans submit that the interim application should be dismissed for the following primary reasons: 1. the Owners Corporation has not adduced evidence or directed its submissions to the existence of urgent considerations justifying the making of an interim order, and otherwise failed to identify the source of the Tribunal's power to restrain the redirecting of the waste stack. 2. in respect of the prayer for access, that relief is final in nature and contrary to principles of interlocutory relief; and there is no evidence of access being denied and the applicant's case is otherwise silent on this matter. 3. the Sullivans have the necessary approval to redirect the waste stack.
2. These matters are developed at some length in the Sullivans' submissions. In summary those submissions are as follows: 1. there are no urgent considerations justifying the making of an interim order; 2. no power has been identified to restrain the redirecting of the waste stack; s 231 of the SSMA is not a source of power itself; 3. it is wholly inappropriate to seek access orders on an interim basis, and the prayer for access should be dis missed on the basis that the relief is not interim in nature but final; 4. the Owners Corporation made no request for access; 5. on the other hand, the Sullivans invited members of the strata committee to inspect the lot discuss the proposed difficulties and solutions on 21 July 2022; 6. on 14 May 2022 the Owners Corporation specially resolved to approve certain alterations to the common property subject to a by-law being made with the lot owner assuming the repair and maintenance obligations of those works; 7. the Sullivans have a prima facie case, whereas the Owners Corporation does not; 8. the Owners Corporation's case is untenable for the 9 reasons set out at [35] of the Sullivans' submissions; 9. an order restraining the Sullivans from completing the work approved by the Owners Corporation would be contrary to the approval given at a general meeting; 10. (the Owners Corporation has been on notice of the works, including the redirection of the waste stack, since 4 November 2020.
3. In the alternative, if the Tribunal is against the Sullivans on those matters, and is satisfied that there are urgent considerations warranting the making of an interim order, the Sullivans submit that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion not to make such an order on the following grounds: 1. the Sullivans made arrangements for alternative accommodation from 21 August 2022 to 24 September 2022 to align with the renovation works, so that they could still have access to sanitary services and hot water; 2. the continuation of an interim order will delay the renovation work, further beyond the current two-week delay caused by the ex parte interim order, at least by the period prescribed in any such order, rendering the Sullivans without a functioning shower, toilet or hot water service; 3. Mrs Sullivan is in the first trimester of her first pregnancy and is experiencing morning sickness, which will be made significantly more unpleasant if the lot has no functioning bathroom; 4. the Sullivans will be put to cost and expense of making alternative accommodation arrangements and possible delay costs from their contractors.
4. In the further alternative, If the Tribunal remains against the Sullivans despite the foregoing, and is minded to exercise its discretion to make an interim order, the Sullivans submit that the Tribunal should make an order akin to the usual undertaking of damages: Pollak v The Owners - Strata Plan No 2834 [2020] NSWSC 784.

Consideration

1. I will commence my consideration of the application for interim relief by making some general observations.
2. In my view, the contentions of both the Owners Corporation and the Sullivans as to the meaning of Special By-Law 52 are both arguable. On the one hand, as submitted by the Owners Corporation, Special By-Law 52 says nothing about removing the waste pipe in any way. The submissions of the Owners Corporation make sense in that to remove common infrastructure would surely require a clear explanation of what was to be done, how it was to be done and who would be responsible for the works and for the maintenance of the changed works after work had been undertaken.
3. On the other hand, as the Sullivans submit, Special By-Law 52 clearly contemplates that other works that was necessary for the safe and lawful undertaking of the works the subject of Special By-Law 52 may be required.
4. While I find the position of each party arguable, I find the submissions of the Owners Corporation to be more persuasive and that the Special By-Law 52 does not authorise then unauthorised works as the waste pipe in question is common infrastructure and also services lots 33, 35, 37 and 39 which are immediately above lot 31. Nor do I accept that such works should be characterised as "[s]uch other works as are necessary for the safe and lawful undertaking of the works referred to in paragraph (a)".
5. Turning to the Sullivans' submissions, I do not accept that there are no urgent considerations justifying extending the interim order. In my view, the unilateral alteration without approval of a common property waste pipe which services four other lots is clearly an urgent issue.
6. Nor do I accept the Sullivan's' submission that the Tribunal lacks power to restrain the directing or the waste stack.
7. And I reject, at least on the interlocutory basis, that the Sullivans' have the necessary approval to redirect the waste stack.
8. I reject entirely that the granting of access order is in the nature of final relief. That said, I see no reason to make an access order in the interim application, as one has now already been made in the application for substantive relief.
9. As to whether or not it is appropriate to grant interim relief I note the following matters.
10. Mr Sullivan realised by 14 July 2022 that "Matt" from East Coast Plumbing was "quite certain" that the Sullivans were not allowed to do such works;
11. Mr Sullivan realised on 16 July 2022 that approval from the Owner's Corporation was required: "the only hiccup is we'll need … approval from the Owner's Corporation";
12. Mr Amoroso told Mr Sullivan on 18 July that the removal of the waste pipe would "definitely need a By-law"; that relocation of the sewer (sic - waste pipe will need … Owners Corporation approval" and was "the correct method anyway", and that Mr Amoroso could assist Mr Sullivan in preparing the documents.
13. By 19 July 2022, Mr Sullivan knew that the strata committee was opposed to the waste stack being redirected externally.
14. By 21 July 2022 Mr Sullivan changed his position about the need for a further by-law when he stated on 21 July 2022 in that he stated that "the by-law passed involved removing the laundry wall, and subsequently all services in it which being a laundry, which would logically include services including electrical & plumbing."
15. On the other hand, I suspect Mr Sullivan is correct when he states in his statement that: Leaving the plumbing in-situ, in the middle of the room where the waste pipe is, was never a logical option and never mentioned in any of the correspondence nor in the by-law.
16. While Mr Sullivan considers that this was an unfortunate lack of foresight or understanding by the strata committee I do not agree that that lack of foresight or understanding is confined only to the strata committee and the Owners corporation.
17. However, I do accept that no members of the strata committee or Owners Corporation's representatives contacted Mr Sullivan in response to his invitation to attend the lot to inspect the works.
18. I also accept that Mr Sullivan was open to finding a way to resolve the issues through constructive dialogue and would have participated in mediation to resolve the issue if requested by the Owners Corporation.
19. Balancing all of these matters, I consider it appropriate to extend the present interim orders.
20. In doing so, I have considered the Sullivans' alternative submission that if satisfied there are urgent considerations warranting an extension of the interim order, the Tribunal should exercise its discretion not to make such an order, chiefly because of the inconvenience and expense the Sullivans would be put to.
21. I reject that submission. The Sullivans were always going to be inconvenienced by these works. As to any additional expenses, that will be covered by the Owners Corporation now having given what in the Supreme Court would be described as "the usual undertaking as to damages".
22. 83 It follows that I do accept the Sullivans' further alternative submission, namely that the Tribunal should make an order akin to the usual undertaking as to damages as would be required in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

For how long should the interim order be extended?

1. I turn now to the question of how long the interim order be extended.
2. The Owners Corporation sought a continuation of the interim order for a period of three months, or such further period the Tribunal determined. No submissions were made on this issue by the Sullivans.
3. I propose in the first instance to extend the interim order for a period of four weeks. In doing so I am trying to minimise the period of inconvenience to the Sullivans, but allow sufficient time for the parties to have further discussions and for the Sullivans, if they think appropriate, put a further by-law or an amendment to Special By-Law 52 before an extraordinary general meeting of the Owners Corporation.
4. I have also taken into account those matters referred to in Mr Sullivan's statement at [37] to [43].
5. While Mr Amoroso stated that three weeks would be required for the owners to receive, vote and have a further by-law minuted, the fact is that only seven day's notice is required for the holding of an extraordinary general meeting: SSMA: cl 7 of Sch 1.

Orders

1. The Tribunal orders: 1. Order (2) of the ex parte orders made by the Tribunal on 16 August 2022 ordering the respondents, their agents and contractors to immediately cease carrying out work on the common property involving a redirecting of a waste pipe to the external wall of lot 31 is extended to 5pm on 3 October 2022. 2. The applicant is to submit to such order (if any) as the Tribunal may consider to be just for the payment of compensation (to be assessed by the Tribunal or as it may direct) to the respondents affected by the operation of these orders or of any interlocutory continuation (with or without variations) of these orders. 3. Each party has liberty to apply on three days' notice. 4. Costs are reserved.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar

Amendments 27 September 2023 - Formatting amendments. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 September 2023