The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal from VCAT orders requiring a lot owner to remove CCTV cameras, an awning, and relocate an air conditioning unit, and to pay a civil penalty for breaches of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 Model Rules. The Court held that s 165 does not require VCAT to make an express 'finding' of fairness using that specific word; rather, fairness is assessed from the substance of the Tribunal's reasoning and whether the order fairly reflects a resolution based on findings of fact and applicable legal principles. The Court also held that s 164 does not require separate or independent treatment where the discretion to dismiss for non-compliance with s 153 overlaps with the substantive determination, and that precise correlation between an OC's initial decision under s 153(2) and subsequent breach notices or relief sought is not required.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.