Question: We applied to have our son and his dog visit us at our unit. This request was denied. Are we entitled to be given a ‘reasonable’ reason for the decision other than the committee not liking animals?
We applied to have our son and his dog visit us at our unit. This request was denied:
“The xxxxxx Corporate Committee has voted on your request to have your son’s pet visit the complex, and the motion was not passed, so you cannot have the dog visit.”
I asked for a valid reason as to why and we have received no response.
As an owner, are we entitled to be given a ‘reasonable’ reason for the decision other than the committee not liking animals?
Answer: The committee has an obligation to act reasonably however is not obliged to provide detailed reason for its decision.
The committee:
- has an obligation to act reasonably; however
- is not obliged to provide detailed reason for its decision.
In Riverbend Gardens [2016] QBCCMCmr 507 the adjudicator relevantly provided:
[36] The three Dorney decisions discussed above say that unless there is a statutory obligation to do so (which does not exist in the body corporate legislation), there is no obligation on a person to advance specific grounds or reasons for their decision at the time of the decision. Although it may be unreasonable to give no explanation of a decision, I agree a body corporate does not necessarily have an obligation to give the applicant comprehensive grounds for its decision.
If any dispute resolution application is made, ultimately the committee would need to justify its decision in front of an adjudicator. Without a valid reason – an application would be successful in overturning the committee’s decision.
It may be worthwhile pointing this out to the committee in an effort to avoid the need for such an application to extract details of the reasons for the decision.
This post appears in the July 2022 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Todd Garsden
Mahoneys
E: tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
P: 07 3007 3753
Leave a Reply