SAT mediation Archives - Bugden Allen Group Legal

When a builder comes back to fix defects, does the limitation clock start again?

As with many legal questions, the answer is: it depends.

It is not uncommon for a builder to return to a property months, or even years, after completing the original building work to rectify defects. For owners and owners corporations, this can create an understandable assumption that the builder’s return to site, particularly where substantial rectification works are undertaken, gives them a fresh period within which to bring a claim.

That assumption can be dangerous.

Rectification or “patch-up” work carried out by a builder does not, of itself, restart the limitation period for a building action in Victoria. Depending on the nature of the subsequent works and the permits and certificates issued in respect of them, a different, and potentially shorter, limitation period may apply.

The starting point: section 134 of the Building Act

Section 134 of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (Building Act) provides that a building action cannot be brought more than 10 years after the date of issue of the occupancy permit in respect of the relevant building work or, where no occupancy permit is issued, the date of issue of the certificate of final inspection.

A “building action” is broadly defined by section 129 of the Building Act as an action for damages for loss or damage arising out of or concerning defective building work.

The operation of section 134 was considered by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Brirek Industries Pty Ltd v McKenzie Group Consulting (Vic) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 165.

Importantly, the Court rejected the proposition that section 134 merely operates as a 10-year “long-stop” sitting above the ordinary limitation periods applying to contractual and tortious claims. Rather, section 134 applies to building actions generally, including claims in contract and tort, and, where it applies, the limitation period operates notwithstanding the different limitation periods otherwise provided by the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (Limitation Act).

In practical terms, where an occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection has been issued in respect of the relevant building work, the date of that document is critical when assessing the limitation period.

But what happens where there is no such document?

What happens when no permits were ever issued?

That issue arose in Gledhill v Scotia Property Maintenance Pty Ltd [2019] VCAT 422 (Gledhill).

The proceeding concerned allegedly defective balcony repair works carried out in approximately June 2007. The owner commenced proceedings in VCAT in May 2018, more than 10 years after those works had been completed.

No building permit had been obtained for the balcony works and no occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection had been issued.

The builder argued that section 134 should nevertheless be interpreted so that the 10 year period ran from completion of the building work. The owner took the opposite position and argued that, because no occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection had been issued, the 10 year period had never begun to run.

VCAT rejected both approaches.

The Tribunal held that section 134 did not operate in circumstances where there was no building permit and therefore no occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection to provide the statutory trigger for the 10-year period.

Instead, because section 134 had no application, VCAT held that section 5 of the Limitation Act applied.

That distinction is significant. Rather than simply asking whether 10 years have passed since the relevant building works were completed, it becomes necessary to identify the applicable cause of action and determine when that cause of action accrued for the purposes of the general limitation regime.

Importantly, VCAT did not ultimately determine whether the owner’s claim in Gledhill was statute-barred under section 5. The builder had not pleaded that alternative defence, so the question was not determined.

The position after Gledhill

The approach in Gledhill has subsequently received support.

In Mason v Fraser [2021] VSC 461, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered building works undertaken in a number of stages. The Court accepted that section 134 applied to stages of the building work for which a certificate of final inspection had been issued. Where no certificate had been issued, however, the applicable limitation period was that provided by section 5 of the Limitation Act.

This reinforces an important point: the limitation analysis may depend upon the particular building work in question and the statutory documents issued in respect of that work.

That can become particularly important where there have been several stages of original construction, subsequent repairs and later rectification works.

So, does rectification work restart the clock?

Not necessarily.

The fact that a builder returns to a property and undertakes further work does not, by itself, mean that the original limitation period starts again.

The proper analysis will depend on matters including:

the nature and scope of the original building work and the subsequent rectification work;
whether the subsequent work constitutes separate building work;
whether a building permit was obtained for that work;
whether an occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection was issued in respect of it;
the particular defects and building work the proposed claim concerns; and
where the Limitation Act applies, when the relevant cause of action accrued.

For owners and owners corporations, this means that a builder’s willingness to return to site should not create a false sense of security about limitation periods.

There can be a natural tendency to allow a builder time to investigate defects, propose solutions and undertake repeated rectification attempts. However, while those discussions and works continue, the applicable limitation period may also continue to run.

What should owners and owners corporations do?

Where significant defects are identified, owners and owners corporations should establish the limitation position early rather than waiting until rectification attempts have failed.

That includes locating and reviewing the original building permit, occupancy permit and/or certificate of final inspection, together with the contractual and approval documents relating to any subsequent rectification works.

Particular care should be taken where a builder has returned to undertake substantial rectification work but no new building permit, occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection has been issued.

Ultimately, rectification works may fix the physical defect. They do not necessarily reset the limitation clock.

Early advice about the applicable limitation period can therefore be just as important as determining how the defect itself should be rectified.

This article was first published on 30 September 2026 and was written by Julia Moroz, Director & Principal and James Cooper, Law Graduate in our Melbourne office.

apartment living model rules Owners Corporation rules Owners Corporations Act 2006 strata governance VCAT Victoria strata

Are Your Owners Corporation Rules Still Fit for Purpose?

When was the last time your Owners Corporation reviewed its rules?

For many Owners Corporations, the answer may be: not since the plan of subdivision was first registered.

And in a building that has changed significantly since then, that can create real problems.

A building is rarely the same community five, ten or twenty years after it was first developed. The way residents use their lots and common property changes. Technology changes. The law changes. New issues emerge.

Yet the rules governing the building can remain largely untouched.

With disputes concerning everything from renovations and pets to electric vehicles, security, deliveries, smoking, short-stay accommodation and the use of common facilities, there is good reason for Owners Corporations to periodically ask a simple question: Do our rules actually reflect the building we are managing today?

What are Owners Corporation Rules

Under section 138 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act), an Owners Corporation may, by special resolution, make, amend or revoke rules in relation to the matters permitted by Schedule 1 to the Act. A rule must be directed to the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the common property or a lot.

The Owners Corporations Regulations 2018 (Vic) (the Regulations) also prescribe model rules. Where an Owners Corporation has not made its own rules, the model rules apply. Where an Owners Corporation has made its own rules but those rules do not address a matter dealt with by the model rules, the relevant model rule is deemed to form part of the Owners Corporation’s rules.

That provides an important baseline.

However, a baseline is not necessarily a complete set of rules tailored to the particular needs of a building.

A six-lot residential development has very different operational requirements from a 300-lot apartment tower with lifts, a gym, swimming pool, loading dock, concierge, extensive security systems and hundreds of residents and visitors moving through it each day.

Rules should reflect those differences.

Why should Owners Corporations review their rules

There are several reasons.

The rules may simply be out of date

Some Owners Corporations continue to operate under rules prepared when the development was originally established.

Since then, legislation and regulations may have changed, the model rules may have changed, and the way the development operates may have changed significantly.

The current Regulations have themselves been amended since their commencement, including amendments to the model rules.

An old rule should not therefore be assumed to remain appropriate simply because it appears on the title.

In fact, registration does not necessarily mean that a rule is valid.

Section 140 of the Act provides that a rule is of no effect if it is oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminates against a lot owner or occupier, or if it is inconsistent with or limits a right or avoids an obligation under applicable legislation.

That makes periodic review particularly important.

Buildings have changed

Think about how apartment living has changed over the past decade.

Online shopping has transformed the volume of deliveries arriving at residential buildings.

Electric vehicles have created new questions about charging infrastructure and the use of car parks and common property.

Working from home has changed how residential lots are occupied during the day.

Short-stay accommodation has introduced another category of occupier into some buildings.

Electronic access systems, CCTV, parcel lockers, bicycle storage and shared amenities have also become increasingly common.

Older rules may never have contemplated any of these issues.

A good set of rules should address the actual building rather than an abstract version of apartment living.

Good rules can prevent disputes before they start

Rules tend to receive the most attention when somebody allegedly breaches them.

By that stage, the Owners Corporation may already be dealing with complaints, correspondence, notices and potentially a proceeding at VCAT.

But rules also have an important preventative function.

Clear rules can establish expectations about matters such as moving in and out of the building, use of common facilities, renovations, parking, waste disposal, noise, security and behaviour on common property.

That gives owners, occupiers, committees and managers a common point of reference before a disagreement becomes a dispute.

Ambiguous rules can have the opposite effect.

What should an Owners Corporation consider?

There is no single set of additional rules that will be appropriate for every Owners Corporation.

The starting point should be the development itself.

An Owners Corporation reviewing its rules might consider issues including:

renovations and works within lots, including notice requirements and protection of common property;
moving procedures and the use of lifts and loading areas;
parking, visitor parking and vehicle access;
electric vehicle charging and associated infrastructure;
pets and the use of common property with animals;
noise, nuisance, smoking and other conduct affecting neighbouring lots;
waste, recycling and disposal of bulky items;
security, access devices and building entry;
use of gyms, pools, rooftops, gardens and other common facilities;
bicycles, scooters and other mobility devices;
deliveries and the use of common areas for parcels;
short-stay accommodation, where relevant;
damage to common property and procedures surrounding works or moving activities; and
any building-specific operational issues that repeatedly generate complaints or uncertainty.

Importantly, the objective is not to create a rule for everything.

More rules do not necessarily mean better governance.

Rules should be clear, necessary, proportionate and capable of being understood and applied. An Owners Corporation’s rule-making power is statutory and is not unlimited. Rules must fall within the matters authorised by the Act and cannot override other legislation merely because the Owners Corporation would prefer a different outcome.

Rules should be tailored, not copied

It can be tempting to take the rules from another development and adopt them wholesale.

That approach should be treated with caution.

Two apartment buildings sitting next door to each other may have completely different plans of subdivision, common property, facilities, easements, access arrangements and operational requirements.

A rule designed for one development may be unnecessary for another, or may not work in the same way.

A proper review should therefore consider not only the existing registered rules, but also the plan of subdivision, the nature and use of the common property, the facilities within the development and the practical issues that the Owners Corporation regularly encounters.

The committee and Owners Corporation manager can play an important role in that process because they are often the people who know where the recurring problems lie.

Making new rules is only part of the process

Identifying that a rule needs to change is not enough.

Under section 138 of the Act, rules are made, amended or revoked by special resolution. The Act also contains requirements concerning the recording of rules.

Accordingly, an Owners Corporation considering a review should allow sufficient time to:

review the existing registered rules and applicable model rules;
identify gaps, outdated provisions and recurring building-specific issues;
prepare rules appropriate for the particular development;
check that the proposed rules are within the Owners Corporation’s statutory rule-making power and are not otherwise of no effect;
put the proposed rules to owners for the necessary resolution; and
complete the required registration and notification steps.

Simply drafting a new document and circulating it to residents does not, by itself, make those provisions enforceable Owners Corporation rules.

A useful governance exercise

Rules are sometimes treated as a document that sits in the Owners Corporation records until there is a dispute.

They should be more than that.

For a well-run Owners Corporation, the rules form part of the practical framework for how hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of interactions between owners, occupiers, visitors, contractors and managers occur each year.

A periodic rules review gives an Owners Corporation an opportunity to consider what has changed, what is causing problems and whether its existing governance framework remains suitable.

A rules review does not necessarily mean rewriting the rulebook. Sometimes it confirms that the existing rules remain appropriate. In other cases, it can identify gaps that have emerged as the building and the way it is used have evolved.

If your Owners Corporation has not looked at its rules for years, that may be the best indication that it is time to look at them again.

This article was first published on 30 September 2026 and was written by Julia Moroz, Director & Principal and Jade Holding, Paralegal in our Melbourne office.

balance brought forward Debt recovery Final Fee Notice owners corporation fees Owners Corporations Act VCAT Victoria strata

“Balance Brought Forward” Is Not Enough: VCAT Clarifies Final Fee Notice Requirements

Owners corporations and their managers should take note of a recent VCAT decision concerning what might appear to be a fairly innocuous accounting practice: carrying arrears forward as a lump sum.

In Owners Corporation PS415135N v Imam [2026] VCAT 704 (Imam), VCAT dismissed an owners corporation’s fee recovery application after finding that an amount described in its Final Fee Notice as “brought forward (includes Overdue Interest)” did not contain the information required by the approved form.

The decision has practical implications for owners corporations and managers using accounting software that automatically rolls historical arrears into a “balance brought forward” or “opening balance”.

The message from VCAT is clear: a lot owner should be able to understand from the Final Fee Notice itself exactly what they are being asked to pay.

What happened?

The owners corporation commenced proceedings seeking recovery of unpaid owners corporation fees.

Its Final Fee Notice dated 16 September 2025 included a substantial amount described simply as:

“brought forward (includes Overdue Interest)”

That amount represented an accumulation of earlier amounts.

The issue for VCAT was whether an owners corporation can recover an amount in fee recovery proceedings where the Final Fee Notice identifies it only as an accumulated lump sum such as a “balance brought forward” or “opening balance”.

This was not merely a technical issue.

The Final Fee Notice demanded $21,401.67. The subsequent VCAT application sought $14,566.46. By the commencement of the hearing, the owners corporation had recalculated its claim to $10,171.77, before reducing it again to $9,788.28 because of deficiencies in the material filed.

VCAT regarded those substantial changes as illustrating the importance of transparency in the fee recovery process.

What does the Act require?

Sections 31 and 32 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act) establish the notice process which precedes an application to VCAT for recovery of unpaid fees and charges.

If money remains unpaid for 28 days following a Fee Notice, an owners corporation may issue a Final Fee Notice in the approved form.

An application under section 163(2) can then be made if the amount remains unpaid for 28 days after the Final Fee Notice is given in accordance with section 32.

The approved Final Fee Notice contains a table requiring three pieces of information about amounts said to remain unpaid:

Date due | Description of fee/charge/interest/arrears | Amount

VCAT considered those requirements to be directed towards transparency.

Member Reid found that the form is intended to enable a lot owner to understand the claim against them by reference to each unpaid amount, its due date, its description and its quantum.

Why isn’t “balance brought forward” enough?

The owners corporation argued that sections 31 and 32 operate sequentially.

In other words, the earlier Fee Notices had already itemised the relevant amounts and the Final Fee Notice was simply the final warning before legal proceedings. On that basis, it argued that the lot owner could refer back to those earlier notices to understand the accumulated balance.

VCAT rejected that argument.

Member Reid said:

“Trawling back through a series of earlier notices and undertaking an accounting exercise to understand a final fee notice is not something lot owners should have to do.”

The fact that a lump sum could be reconstructed using earlier Fee Notices or the owners corporation’s ledger did not make the description in the Final Fee Notice sufficient.

There was also a practical problem with a lump sum: it has no single meaningful due date.

The individual amounts comprising the balance each have their own due dates. VCAT considered that those are the dates the approved form requires the owners corporation to identify.

Can VCAT simply unpack the balance?

No.

This is another important aspect of the decision.

The owners corporation argued that its ledger and Summary of Proofs identified the components of the lump sum and that VCAT could determine which components were properly recoverable.

VCAT rejected that approach.

The entries on the Final Fee Notice had to be considered as the owners corporation had chosen to describe them. The Tribunal was not prepared to dissect the lump sum at the hearing and award those parts which might otherwise have been recoverable.

That was particularly significant in Imam because the lump sum included amounts such as legal costs and debt recovery costs which the owners corporation did not ultimately claim and, in several instances, had no statutory entitlement to place on the lot owner’s account in the first place.

The lump sum therefore stood or fell as the amount appearing on the Final Fee Notice.

Debt recovery costs

The lump sum problem in Imam was compounded by another issue: on VCAT’s findings, the amount included items that were not lawfully recoverable from the lot owner as a debt.

That finding sits alongside an established line of Tribunal authority concerning section 165(1)(ca) of the Act, which empowers VCAT to order a lot owner to pay the “reasonable costs incurred by the owners corporation in recovering an unpaid amount from the lot owner (other than costs in the proceeding).”

In Imam, Member Reid referred to three authorities dealing with this issue: Owners Corporation RP002044 v Finch (Owners Corporations) [2016] VCAT 2166, Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS718154U v Wang (Owners Corporations) [2025] VCAT 452 and the Tribunal’s specially constituted decision in Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS735439F v Singh (Owners Corporations) [2022] VCAT 389 (Singh).

In Singh, the Tribunal considered the proper operation of section 165(1)(ca). It concluded that the provision does not depend upon, or itself create, a pre-existing obligation on the lot owner to pay those debt recovery costs. Rather, the claim under section 165(1)(ca) is a claim for an order from VCAT requiring the lot owner to pay reasonable recovery costs.

That distinction is important.

The fact that an owners corporation has incurred debt recovery costs does not, without more, make those costs a debt due and payable by the defaulting lot owner. Nor can that result be achieved simply by adding the costs to the lot owner’s ledger, including them in a fee notice or passing a resolution purporting to make them recoverable.

In Singh, the Tribunal considered resolutions which purported to make debt recovery costs recoverable directly from defaulting lot owners and concluded that they were of no lawful effect. The statutory mechanism is instead for the owners corporation to seek an order from VCAT under section 165(1)(ca) for reasonable costs incurred in recovering the unpaid amount. Costs of the VCAT proceeding itself are dealt with separately under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

The distinction also has practical consequences for Final Fee Notices. Singh warned against including amounts in a Final Fee Notice that are not, at that point, legally due and payable by the lot owner. The Tribunal observed that doing so creates uncertainty about what the lot owner is actually required to pay and warned that the practice may jeopardise a subsequent claim for reasonable recovery costs under section 165(1)(ca).

Imam brings that issue into sharper focus. There, the Tribunal held that a lump sum “balance brought forward” did not satisfy the informational requirements of the approved Final Fee Notice form and could not be rescued by asking the Tribunal to work backwards through earlier notices or dissect the lump sum into recoverable and unrecoverable components.

Read together, Imam and Singh provide two related cautions for owners corporations and managers. A Final Fee Notice should clearly identify and itemise the amounts said to be due and payable by the lot owner. Just as importantly, amounts claimed as debt recovery costs under section 165(1)(ca) should not be treated as an existing debt of the lot owner merely because those costs have been incurred. Recovery of those costs requires an order from VCAT.

I prefer this version because it doesn’t overstate Imam and it makes the practical point much clearer: there are really two separate traps, itemisation and legal recoverability.

I would also avoid saying Imam and Singh “point to the same conclusion from two directions”. It is a good turn of phrase, but legally they are doing different work. Imam is principally about the informational requirements of the approved Final Fee Notice and the inability to cure an unidentified lump sum; Singh is principally about the statutory basis upon which reasonable debt-recovery costs may be recovered. Keeping those propositions separate actually makes the article stronger.

Does one defective entry invalidate the entire Final Fee Notice?

Importantly, not necessarily.

VCAT did not find that the inclusion of an inadequately described lump sum automatically rendered the whole Final Fee Notice invalid.

Member Reid considered that a Final Fee Notice containing an unrecoverable amount could still be substantially in the approved form.

If another amount appearing on that notice is adequately described, for example, a standard levy with its due date, description and amount, and the requirements of sections 31 and 32 have otherwise been satisfied, that individual amount may still be recoverable.

That distinction is important.

The problem in Imam was that the Final Fee Notice contained no such independently recoverable levy. It consisted of the lump sum, interest on that amount and a $149 Final Fee Notice charge which VCAT found the owners corporation had no statutory entitlement to place on the notice.

The result was that the owners corporation failed to establish an entitlement to recover any fees or levies to the date of the Final Fee Notice.

Its claims for further interest, reasonable recovery costs and legal costs consequently also failed, and the application was dismissed.

A warning about accounting software

There is a particularly useful observation in the decision for owners corporation managers.

The owners corporation submitted that requiring every unpaid amount to be itemised could result in a Final Fee Notice running to 30 pages, and that its software could itemise unpaid amounts going forward but could not completely remove a reference to a brought-forward balance.

VCAT was unmoved.

Member Reid acknowledged that the decision may require some owners corporations to update the software used to generate Final Fee Notices and that some notices may become very long.

However, those practical inconveniences were not considered sufficient to alter the requirements of the approved form.

That is an important compliance issue.

An automatically generated notice should not be assumed to be compliant simply because it has been produced by owners corporation management software.

What should owners corporations and managers do?

The practical consequence of Imam is that owners corporations and managers should review their debt recovery processes before proceedings are commenced.

In particular, Final Fee Notices should be checked to ensure that amounts sought to be recovered are individually identified by reference to their due date, description and amount, rather than being rolled into an unexplained “balance brought forward” or “opening balance”.

Managers should also review the way their accounting software generates Final Fee Notices and consider whether historical arrears are being automatically consolidated.

And where legal fees, debt recovery expenses or administrative charges have been placed on a lot owner’s account, careful consideration should be given to whether there is a lawful basis for doing so. VCAT reiterated in Imam that there is no power under the Act to require a lot owner to pay administrative or legal costs on a user-pays basis in the absence of an authorising court or tribunal order.

The Takeaway

Imam demonstrates that fee recovery is not simply an exercise in proving what the owners corporation’s ledger says is owing.

The statutory notice process matters.

A debt may exist in the owners corporation’s accounting records, and the owners corporation may have documents capable of explaining precisely how that debt arose. But if the amount is presented on the Final Fee Notice merely as an accumulated lump sum, VCAT has now held that it does not satisfy the informational requirements of the approved form and cannot be recovered in that fee recovery proceeding.

For owners corporations and managers, the lesson is relatively straightforward: Before commencing debt recovery proceedings, check the Final Fee Notice, not just the ledger.

This article was first published on 30 September, 2026 and was written by Julia Moroz, Director & Principal and Michael Skolarikis, Lawyer in our Melbourne office.

aged care payments capital maintenance exit entitlements resident rights retirement village operators retirement village reforms WA retirement villages

WA retirement village laws are changing

New rules for WA retirement villages started on 1 September 2026, under the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2024 (WA) and the new Retirement Villages Regulations 2026. They’re being rolled out in five stages over the next two years, giving operators and residents time to adjust. Here’s what’s changing and when.

From 1 September 2026

Getting paid out: When you leave a retirement village, the operator must pay your exit entitlement — usually on a date set by your contract or when the unit resells, and no later than 12 months after you leave. You can also agree a different date with the operator, or (if your contract was ended by the Tribunal) it’s due 10 days after the date the Tribunal set for you to move out. The operator must give you a statement showing how they worked out the amount. Operators who don’t pay on time can be fined up to $20,000.
Buybacks: Some residents have a contract where the operator has to buy back their unit — for example, where you occupy by owning shares, or your contract gives the operator a repurchase right or restricts you from reselling to someone else. If that applies to you, the operator now has up to 12 months from when you move out to complete the purchase, at a price you agree or that’s set by an independent licensed valuer if you can’t agree. (Not every contract has a buyback — check yours.) Operators can apply to Consumer Protection for a one-off extension of up to 12 months, or in limited cases a longer exemption, if they can show genuine hardship.
Aged care payments: If you’re eligible and moving into aged care, you can ask for part of your exit entitlement to be paid straight toward your aged care daily accommodation payment, instead of waiting for the full amount. The detail of how to request this — and who’s eligible — is set out in the Regulations.
Recurring charges after you leave: You can choose to have any ongoing charges (like fees that keep running after you move out) deducted from your exit entitlement rather than paid separately, and the operator can only charge you this way if you’ve elected to do so.
Budgets: Operators must consult residents before finalising the annual budget, not just after.
Conduct rules: New standards of professionalism, training and behaviour apply to operators and their staff, as well as residents, with consequences for breaches to be set out in the Regulations.
Closing a village: A village can’t be closed while a resident who’s moved in remains in occupation, unless the operator gives residents an approved termination plan, holds a meeting at least a month later to answer questions, and helps each resident find alternative accommodation of a similar standard.

Later stages

December 2026: Residents must be consulted before any modifications are made to the village, and “before and after” property condition reports will be required when a resident moves in and again when they leave — useful evidence if there’s a dispute about reinstating or renovating the unit.
July 2027: Prospective residents must be given two new disclosure documents before signing a contract — a community arrangements statement and a prospective resident information statement — so they know what they’re getting into.
First half of 2028: A public register of retirement villages goes live, so people can compare villages and see basic information (including the community arrangements statement) before visiting in person.
July 2028: Operators become responsible for maintaining and replacing capital items (things like lifts, roofs and common facilities), backed by a mandatory 5-year capital maintenance plan and a dedicated, adequately funded maintenance fund. Residents will need to report capital item problems to the operator.

Why it matters

If you’re an operator, it’s worth reviewing your current contracts, budgeting process and exit/buyback procedures now — non-compliance with several of these obligations carries fines, and the reforms generally apply to existing contracts as well as new ones. If you’re a resident, these changes affect how quickly you’re paid out, how the village is run, and what you’re told before you move in or when you leave.

Consumer Protection is running information sessions and will publish forms and templates as they become available — see their bulletins for updates.

——
Source: Consumer Protection WA, “Retirement village law reforms” (updated 20 August 2026), consumerprotection.wa.gov.au/retirement-village-law-reforms; Retirement Villages Act 1992 (WA) as amended by the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2024 (WA).

10-year plan reserve fund strata budgets strata levies Strata Titles Act 1985 unpaid levies WA strata law

The District Court of WA confirms that an owner cannot withhold strata levies for want of a 10-year plan

A missing 10-year plan does not, by itself, invalidate a strata company’s budget or its power to raise levies — an owner cannot refuse to pay on that basis alone.

In The Owners of 875 Wellington Street Strata Plan 13599 v Kamil [2026] WADC 72, the District Court of Western Australia considered whether a strata company’s failure to prepare a statutory 10-year plan meant its budgets — and the levies raised under them — were invalid.

The strata scheme comprises 80 lots in a five-storey Perth building used entirely for short-stay accommodation, with two competing owner-operators managing bookings for most of the apartments. The defendant, one of those operators, did not pay his strata levies for 2022 and 2023 — a combined claim of over $560,000. He argued the plaintiff had breached its statutory obligations, including by failing to have a 10-year plan when it set its 2022 budget, and that this meant the levies were raised without power and did not have to be paid. He also counterclaimed for money he said he had spent on common property repairs, refunds he had given guests, negligence, illegitimate pressure and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff also attacked the reliability of the defendant’s invoices, on which most of his counterclaim depended. Several were dated before the defendant’s company was even incorporated, yet issued under its name and details — put down to “copy and paste” errors. The same invoice number recurred on unrelated invoices issued years apart, and the defendant admitted he chose numbers at random rather than sequentially, and that invoice dates could be out by “a few months” from when the work was actually done.

The plaintiff admitted it had not had a 10-year plan in place in 2022 but denied this affected its power to raise levies, and denied the other alleged breaches and counterclaims.

The Court found that:

the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) does not make a valid 10-year plan a precondition to a strata company’s power to determine and levy contributions to the reserve fund — the two obligations, while related, are not legally linked;
an approved budget is a precondition to expenditure, but nothing in the Act makes the 10-year plan a precondition to an approved budget, or to the validity of a resolution raising levies;
the defendant’s evidence of the work he said he carried out and the money he said he spent on common property could not be relied upon, and did not establish that the plaintiff had been negligent, applied unconscionable pressure, or been unjustly enriched; and
none of the defendant’s defences or counterclaims succeeded, in either action.

The Court entered judgment for the plaintiff in both actions — for $136,406.80 plus interest, and $433,386.95 plus interest — dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims, and ordered him to pay the plaintiff’s costs. [Note: at the date of the decision, these orders were proposed only — the Court indicated it would hear further from the parties before finalising them, so the orders as summarised above should be verified against the final orders made.]

The key takeaway: an owner cannot withhold levies simply because a strata company has failed to prepare or update its 10-year plan. That failure is a separate breach in its own right, with its own remedies under the Act — it does not, on its own, unwind the budget or the levies raised under it.

If you need advice or assistance in respect of strata company levies, budgets, 10-year plans, or recovering unpaid contributions, please do not hesitate to contact the team at our Perth office.

This article was first published on 28 September 2026 and was written by Ray Santos, Lawyer in our Perth office.