Question: In our small block, we have an owner demanding we do not use weed killer on Body Corporate property as his wife is allergic. They insist we hand weed at a much higher cost. What can we do?
We are a block of 12 lots and have an owner (also a member of the Committee) demanding we do not use Glyphosate weed killer on Body Corporate property.
He says his partner is allergic to it. Prior to buying into the premises several years ago, they did not seek information as to what product we use.
When they moved in they instructed the gardener to not use the product.
As a compromise, we have tried several other weed killers, which are not as effective (do not kill the roots and the weeds spring up again).
This owner wants us to hand weed, mulch, change our irrigation and use non-glyphosate weed killer on the rest of the property (at a much higher cost).
We are at an impasse and they are intent on going down the path to conciliation and arbitration if we use glyphosate and also throwing threats of discrimination towards someone who has a disability into the mix.
Meanwhile, the garden is looking terrible due to our restraint although the BC would prefer to go back to glyphosate.
Does someone with a medical issue have other rights than other lot owners?
Answer: If it went to adjudication, it would be a harder argument to win that the opposing argument.
I think if it went to adjudication, the insistence on the use a singular type of weed killer, which was potentially detrimental to the health an owner (which would need to be evidenced), would be a harder argument to win that the opposing argument.
My gut feel would be that there has to be an alternative to glyphosate that could work – perhaps in combination with something else, like a bit of hand weeding?
This post appears in Strata News #611.
Frank Higginson Hynes Legal E: frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au P: 07 3193 0500