Question: Is providing a link sufficient to meet the section 182(3) inspection obligation, or can owners insist on an in-person inspection?
Is providing a link alone insufficient to meet the obligation under section 182(3)? The decision in Daley v The Owners – Strata Plan 2754 [2026] NSWCATAP 38 considered this question and determined that “the answer to the issue raised will depend on a variety of circumstances including, amongst others, the nature of the storage system and software, whether links are provided to required documents, whether they can otherwise be easily viewed or located, the nature of the user interface, and its availability and accessibility to a person who is not an expert strata searcher”.
If strata managing agents won’t agree to generate reports of the data entered on behalf of the owners corporation (OC), are they obliged to allow in-person inspections?
Note: the QLD adjudicator in The Groves No. 4 Minyama [2024] QBCCMCmr 58 stated “An interested person may choose to inspect the records or be provided with a copy of the records, or both. Although the body corporate may prefer the person to inspect, the legislation leaves that choice up to the person seeking access to the records.” Is this the same in NSW?
Answer: Owners can require inspection access, with a formal path to compel it if wrongfully withheld.
In NSW, the requirement to keep electronic books and records is relatively new, meaning that some schemes will have a mix of paper records and electronic records. In most cases, the strata managing agent will say when the electronic records start. For older records that are not kept electronically, the OC will need to be able to provide for an in-person inspection under section 182.
In Daley, the appellant (Daley) had conducted a search and, due to the records being “in a mess” and technical issues accessing the files, could not locate the documents they sought. The OC’s position was that it was up to Daley to overcome the issues to access the documents. The Appeal Panel found there was a real question about whether the documents had been made available, noting that the ordinary meaning of “available” meant they were suitable, able or capable of use. It gave the example of an OC providing a link to a large number of electronic documents that had unclear file or folder descriptions and indicated that without “some clear and reasonably specific guidance as to where and how the documents sought were to be located” that this would not satisfy section 182(3). The reason was that the documents would not have been made available, as they could not be used. It also noted that the means or method of providing access was the method of providing access to the actual documents, not to the OC’s books and records as a whole.
What was not answered in Daley (to be fair, it was not raised) is whether the OC must generate a report of the data entered on its behalf, and if they cannot or will not do so, are they obligated to provide an in person inspection. In short, there is no express requirement under the Act for the OC (or its strata managing agent) to provide a report on the data entered into its electronic records. This is supported by the decision in Rao Nallamouthou v Owners-Strata Plan No 39988 [2024] NSWCATCD 73 where the Tribunal found at paragraph [54] that section 188 is not a mechanism to require an OC to create documents or explanations, only to provide access to documents already in its possession.
The appellant in Daley sought an order that the OC, without the requirement for a search, either locate and provide Daley with the documents for copying, or locate and send an electronic copy of the documents. In the original decision, the Tribunal held it had no power to make an order to supply documents on request of a lot owner. The Appeal Panel did not consider this point and will likely be determined in the remitted proceedings before the Tribunal. However, in another section 182 decision of Abraham v Owners Strata Plan No 61419 [2023] NSWCATCD 119 the Tribunal’s position was that the OC’s obligation was to provide access to the documents unless the Tribunal ordered otherwise under section 188. The Tribunal indicated at paragraph [8] that section 188 provided it with power to make an order that an OC supply information if it was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to the information and the information has been “wrongfully withheld“. In my view, depending on how the order is framed, the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction either under section 188 or the general order making power under section 232 to require documents to be provided.
A link to section 182 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) is here.
This post appears in the September 2026 edition of The NSW Strata Magazine.
Leave a Reply