Trafalgar loses another battle in dog fight

Jimmy…thanks again from the Unit Owners Association of Queensland (UOAQ) for sharing the Trafalgar Towers story with your readers.  There are two matters of concern to the UOAQ about the latest adverse ruling against the Tower body corporate:

1: There was no mention by the 2021 Adjudicator of the earlier adverse ruling in 2016, on pretty much the same issue.  In 2016, the body corporate was told to remove the condition that the cat or dog had to be carried up the emergency stairs in a wire cage…but it was also suggested they look closely at the remainder of their anti-pet by-law.  Obviously they didn’t look too closely because they stuck with the conditions that the pets could not access the lifts and had to use the stairs.  Hence the 2021 ruling.  This would have been a perfect opportunity for the 2021 Adjudicator to unleash on a body corporate for persisting with an obviously invalid by-law to the detriment of the owners.

2.  This is another example where the BCCM legislation should permit some form of ‘costs’ being awarded against egregious RESPONDENTS who cause the problem in the first place.  Current law only allows costs against APPLICANTS for this type of behaviour.  The UOAQ does not favour a standard ‘costs’ regime where “winner takes all… loser pays”.  This would not be appropriate in a ‘peoples’ court’ where all parties are entitled to have their say on matters of genuine doubt, without risk of automatic penalties for getting it wrong. But if there is serious fault on the part of one party to a dispute, some type of sanction against the loser should be available, regardless of whether you are the applicant or the respondent.

Ross Anderson  UOAQ Executive