Joint and several liability of short-stay provider and short-stay occupant
169H Joint and several liability of short-stay provider and short-stay occupant
A short-stay provider and a short-stay occupant are jointly and severally liable for satisfying any order made under—
section 165(1)(c) to compensate for loss or damage incurred as a result of the short-stay occupant substantially damaging or altering—
a lot or the common property, intentionally or negligently; or
a structure that forms part of a lot or the common property, intentionally or negligently; or
section 165(1)(j) to rectify loss or damage incurred as a result of the short-stay occupant substantially damaging or altering—
a lot or the common property, intentionally or negligently; or
a structure that forms part of a lot or the common property, intentionally or negligently; or
section 169E to compensate for loss of amenity; or
section 169G to pay a civil penalty.
Where a lot owner has appointed an agent provider—
subsection (1) does not apply to an agent provider; and
the lot owner and the short-stay occupant are jointly and severally liable instead for satisfying any order referred to in subsection (1).
(3) Despite subsection (1), a short-stay provider is not liable for satisfying a loss of amenity compensation order under section 169E if VCAT is satisfied that the short-stay provider took all reasonable steps to prevent any relevant breach by a short-stay occupant of the proscribed conduct specified in section 159A(2).
Pt 11 Div. 1B (Heading and ss 169I, 169J) inserted by No. 4/2021 s. 73.
Division 1B—Proceedings commenced, prosecuted, defended or discontinued by lot owner on behalf of owners corporation
S. 169I inserted by No. 4/2021 s. 73.
169I Lot owner may apply to VCAT to commence, prosecute, defend or discontinue any proceeding on behalf of owners corporation
A lot owner may apply to VCAT for an order that authorises the lot owner to commence, prosecute, defend or discontinue a specified proceeding on behalf of the owners corporation.
At the hearing of an application under subsection (1)—
a lot owner has the burden of proving why VCAT should make an order under subsection (1) if—
the owners corporation has not voted on a special resolution relating to the matter that is the subject of the lot owner's application; or
the owners corporation has unsuccessfully voted on a special resolution relating to the matter that is the subject of the lot owner's application and an ordinary resolution would not have been passed; and
any other party to the application has the burden of proving why VCAT should not make an order under subsection (1) if the owners corporation has unsuccessfully voted on a special resolution relating to the matter that is the subject of the lot owner's application and an ordinary resolution would have been passed.
Note
See section 18.
S. 169J inserted by No. 4/2021 s. 73.
The statute text is free to read above. View subscription options to unlock the case-law research tools for each provision.