Strata Lawyers Archives - Bugden Allen Group Legal

The Right to Charge: NSW Gives Strata Owners a New EV Pathway

Legislative Reform | New South Wales

Electric vehicles are becoming increasingly popular, and apartment owners want to charge them at home. Until now, getting a charger approved in a strata building has meant navigating the standard works approval process – general meeting votes, committee discretion, and by-laws that have sometimes been used to block installations outright.

That is about to change.

The Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 has passed the NSW Legislative Assembly and is currently before the Legislative Council. When enacted, it will give lot owners a standalone legal right to install an EV charging station on their lot – even where the installation requires work on common property.

How it works

The owner sends a written installation notice to the strata committee, along with information prescribed by the regulations. The committee then has three months to respond. If it doesn’t, approval is deemed granted. If it objects, it must do so in writing with reasons — and those reasons must be reasonable. A by-law that unreasonably prohibits EV charging on an owner’s lot will have no force or effect. If an owner considers the committee’s objection unreasonable, they can apply to NCAT for an order requiring approval.

The owner pays all installation costs and indemnifies the owners corporation for any ongoing maintenance costs and damage to common property. The process sits entirely outside the existing cosmetic, minor, and major works framework — it cannot be blocked by an existing works by-law.

What this means for your scheme

The practical risk for committees is not the first request – it’s the fifth. Individual chargers are manageable; a wave of simultaneous installations without any load management planning is not. The smartest thing a committee can do right now is develop a building-wide EV charging policy before the requests arrive, so there is a consistent and legally defensible framework in place.

Developers should also take note: buildings with adequate electrical capacity and governance documents that anticipate EV charging will be increasingly attractive to buyers.

How Bugden Allen can help

We can assist committees with EV charging policies, advise on what constitutes a reasonable objection, draft by-laws and governance documents for new developments, and represent owners or owners corporations in any NCAT disputes that arise. Contact our NSW team to discuss your scheme.

Further Information

For further information, the NSW Government’s Energy NSW website has guidance on making strata buildings EV ready: energy.nsw.gov.au. The Bill in its current form can be viewed on the NSW Parliament website.

building inspections major structural defects pre purchase inspections REIWA Annexure A residential sale contracts retaining wall defects WA property contracts

Major structural defects inspections under sale contracts – what do they cover?

A recent case has highlighted something that (almost) every person buying a home in WA should know: ‘Major structural defects’ in the context of a contract for the sale of a residential home in WA may not extend to defects of structures other than the residential building, i.e. the house

Many contracts for the sale of a residential home in WA use the REIWA standard form and incorporate the REIWA Annexure A Australian Standard Pre‑Purchase Inspection For Major Structural Defects, or a special condition in similar terms.

REIWA Annexure A in effect permits a purchaser to undertake an inspection of the property for the purpose of identifying major structural defects. If a major structural defect is identified in the inspection report, the purchaser is entitled to issue a notice requiring the seller to remedy the defect, failing which the purchaser can terminate the contract.

Identification of structural defects is important for any purchaser, especially during the conditional period of a sale contract. However, REIWA Annexure A (and its equivalents) can be considered as somewhat ambiguous in its terms. People often do not fully understand what is and is not covered at the time they sign the contract, only finding out too late when they are already in a dispute about their deposit or termination of the sale contract.

The recent judgment in White v Staples t/as Jim’s Building Inspections (Duncraig) [2026] WADC 49 expresses the view that REIWA Annexure A likely does not extend to defects of structures other than the residential building, i.e. the house, unless the house is somehow consequentially affected in a structurally significant way or the other structure is expressly incorporated into the inspection.

In that case, a purchaser is suing a building inspector for failing to identify significant defects with a retaining wall. The defence is essentially that there was no obligation to identify such defects, nor would any defects have given the purchaser any right to issue a notice requiring remediation or to terminate, because the retaining wall was not a part of the residential building, was not required to be inspected pursuant to the sale contract, and the defects are not otherwise captured by REIWA Annexure A.

This interpretation would extend to many structures which purchasers may assume is covered by their structural inspection, such as patios, pergolas, carports, sheds, and fencing.

The judgment was given in the context of a costs application following a summary judgment application, but is nevertheless important for anyone involved in a sale contract dispute in WA. The proceedings will be an interesting one to follow should they progress.

This article was first published on June 25, 2026 and was written by Jonathan O’Connor, Senior Associate in our Perth office.

Alucobond decision Building defects cladding liability combustible cladding defect claims Federal Court owners corporations Strata Law

From Product Defect to Building Defect: What Owners Corporations Should Learn from the Alucobond Decision

The Federal Court’s decision in Owners – Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 351 is one of the most significant cladding decisions delivered in Australia in recent years.

At first glance, the case appears to be about combustible cladding. More specifically, it concerned claims brought against the manufacturers and distributors of Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus, products used on buildings throughout Australia.

However, the most important lesson from the judgment may have very little to do with cladding itself.

Instead, the decision raises a broader question for owners corporations, strata managers and building owners: When defects emerge in a building, where should responsibility actually sit?

The Case

The proceeding was brought as a class action on behalf of owners of buildings that incorporated Alucobond PE or Alucobond Plus cladding.

The applicants alleged that the products were unsafe, non-compliant and not of acceptable quality. They also alleged that representations made about the products were misleading.

Following an extensive trial involving fire engineers, chemists and building experts, the Federal Court rejected the claims.

The Court ultimately concluded that the products themselves could not be characterised as inherently defective in the manner alleged by the applicants.

Why the Decision Matters

What makes the judgment particularly interesting is the Court’s reasoning.

Rather than treating the issue as a simple product liability dispute, the Court focused on the reality that building safety cannot be assessed by looking at a construction product in isolation.

Whether a building presents an unacceptable fire risk depends on numerous factors, including:

the design of the building;
the fire engineering strategy;
the manner in which the product was specified;
how it was installed;
the certification pathway adopted; and
the regulatory framework that applied at the time of construction.

In effect, the Court recognised that the same product may produce very different outcomes depending on how and where it is used.

This distinction is significant because it shifts attention away from the product itself and towards the decisions made throughout the design and construction process.

What This Means for Owners Corporations

For many owners corporations, combustible cladding has historically been viewed as a product problem.

This judgment suggests that approach may be too simplistic.

If liability depends on building-specific circumstances, recovery efforts may require a much deeper investigation into the conduct of those involved in the development process. Builders, architects, fire engineers, building surveyors, certifiers and consultants may all become relevant depending on the circumstances of the project.

While this does not necessarily make recovery impossible, it does make it more complex.

Unlike a claim focused on a single product manufacturer, building defect claims often require detailed evidence regarding who made particular decisions, what standards applied at the time and whether those decisions contributed to the loss ultimately suffered by the owners corporation.

A Broader Lesson Beyond Cladding

Although the case concerned combustible cladding, its implications extend well beyond cladding disputes.

Many building defect claims involve similar questions.

Waterproofing failures, façade defects, structural movement, fire safety issues and building services defects often arise from a combination of design decisions, product selection, workmanship and certification processes.

The Alucobond decision serves as a reminder that building defects rarely have a single cause.

The temptation is often to search for one responsible party. In reality, responsibility is frequently shared among multiple participants who each played a role in creating the risk.

The Importance of Early Investigation

Perhaps the most important takeaway for Victorian owners corporations is the importance of acting early.

Where recovery options depend on project-specific evidence, delays can significantly impact a claim. Documents become harder to locate, participants move on, memories fade and limitation periods continue to run.

Owners corporations should not wait until defects become critical before investigating their position.

Understanding who was involved in the design and construction of a building, and preserving the evidence needed to assess potential claims, is often just as important as identifying the defect itself.

Final Thought

The Federal Court’s decision may be remembered as the cladding class action that failed. However, its longer-term significance may be something quite different.

The judgment challenges the idea that combustible cladding is simply a product liability issue. Instead, it reinforces a principle that many defect practitioners encounter every day: building failures are often the product of decisions, not just products.

For owners corporations, that distinction may prove critical when considering how, and against whom, recovery action should be pursued.

This article was first published on June 23, 2026 and was written by Julia Moroz, Partner in our Melbourne office.

Building defects defect claims expert reports limitation periods owners corporations Strata Law Victorian strata water ingress

Defects Don’t Wait for Committees: Why the Most Expensive Decision is Often Doing Nothing

A water stain appears on a ceiling.

A crack forms in a basement wall.

An owner mentions a balcony that “doesn’t quite feel right”.

None of these issues appears urgent. Yet some of the most expensive building defect claims begin with symptoms that initially appeared minor and manageable.

The issue is raised at a committee meeting, noted in the minutes, and discussion is deferred pending further information.

Three months later, the issue is raised again.

Then again.

Before long, years have passed.

For many owners corporations, this is how building defect claims are lost, not because the defects were hidden, but because nobody appreciated how quickly time was running out.

The Silent Countdown

One of the greatest misconceptions in strata is that a building defect only becomes a problem when it becomes serious.

In reality, the clock often starts long before the defect is discovered.

Water continues to penetrate. Damage continues to spread.

By the time an owners corporation decides the issue is serious enough to investigate, it may discover that the defect is larger than expected, the rectification costs have multiplied, and the critical legal rights are approaching expiry. In many cases, the cost of delay far exceeds the cost of obtaining expert advice in the first place.

Under Victorian legislation, claims relating to defective building work are generally subject to a 10-year long-stop limitation period running from the issue of the occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection. Once that period expires, rights can be lost regardless of how significant the defect becomes or when it was discovered.

The consequence is simple: while committees debate whether an issue is worth investigating, the limitation period continues to run.

The building does not pause.

The defect does not pause.

The clock does not pause.

Why Owners Corporations Delay

Most committees do not ignore defects deliberately.

The reality is that owners corporations are required to make collective decisions, often with limited budgets and competing priorities.

Committee members are understandably reluctant to spend money investigating what may turn out to be a minor issue. Lot owners may question the need for expert reports where damage appears cosmetic. Managers are often balancing competing views from stakeholders who have very different risk appetites.

The result is a cycle familiar to many strata professionals:

Monitor the issue.

Wait for more information.

See if it gets worse.

Revisit it at the next meeting.

Unfortunately, by the time the issue is undeniably serious, the options available to the owners corporation may be significantly reduced.

The Cost of Waiting

Early investigations are frequently viewed as an expense.

In reality, they are often one of the most cost-effective investments an owners corporation can make.

A properly scoped expert investigation can identify whether an issue is:

a maintenance problem;
an isolated defect;
evidence of a broader systemic issue;
a safety concern; or
something requiring urgent legal consideration.

More importantly, an investigation provides certainty.

Without expert advice, committees are often making decisions based on assumptions rather than evidence.

The question should not be “Can we afford to investigate?”

It should be “Can we afford not to?”

Small Symptoms Can Reveal Large Problems

Some of the most significant defect claims begin with seemingly minor complaints.

A recurring leak may indicate widespread waterproofing failures.

A cracked wall may reveal structural movement.

A loose balcony tile may expose more extensive construction defects.

By the time visible damage becomes widespread, rectification costs have often increased dramatically and critical evidence may have been lost.

Owners corporations should be particularly cautious where they observe recurring water ingress, widespread cracking, façade deterioration, fire safety concerns, balcony defects, roof failures or repeated complaints relating to the same building element.

These issues do not necessarily mean a major defect claim exists.

They do, however, justify asking whether further investigation is required.

Information Creates Options

Obtaining an expert report does not mean litigation is inevitable.

In fact, many investigations confirm that issues can be managed through maintenance programs or targeted repairs.

The real value lies in understanding the problem early enough to make informed decisions.

When owners corporations act early, they preserve options.

When they wait, those options can disappear.

The Question Every Committee Should Ask

Perhaps the most important question for any committee is not whether a defect exists.

It is whether enough has been done to understand the risk.

Because while committees may meet every few months, building defects continue to develop every day.

By the time a defect becomes impossible to ignore, it may already be too late to preserve every available remedy.

This article was first published on June 23, 2026 and was written by Julia Moroz, Partner and Jade Holding, Paralegal in our Melbourne office.

Consumer Affairs Victoria OC manager licensing OC reforms Owners Corporation Act strata compliance strata governance Victorian owners corporations

More Regulation, More Enforcement, More Compliance: Will the Owners Corporations Reforms Fix Governance?

The Victorian Government’s response to the statutory review of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) represents the most significant proposed overhaul of owners corporation governance since the legislation commenced almost two decades ago.

The headline reforms have attracted considerable attention. Licensing of Owners Corporation managers. Expanded investigative and enforcement powers for Consumer Affairs Victoria. Increased penalties. New disclosure obligations. Enhanced governance requirements. A new duty for initial owners (i.e., developers) to act in the best interests of subsequent lot owners.

Collectively, the reforms signal a clear shift towards greater regulation of the sector.

The underlying assumption appears straightforward: stronger regulation will lead to better governance.

The reality may be more complicated.

There is little doubt that some reform is necessary. The Expert Panel that undertook the review identified recurring concerns regarding transparency, conflicts of interest, record keeping, procurement practices and the conduct of some managers and committee members. Many practitioners working in the sector have encountered situations where stronger oversight would have been beneficial.

Yet governance failures are often symptoms rather than causes.

In practice, many disputes arise not because there are insufficient laws, but because owners have competing interests, limited engagement with governance processes, and differing expectations about how their communities should operate.

No amount of regulation can entirely eliminate those tensions.

The proposed licensing regime for owners corporation managers is perhaps the most significant structural reform. Supporters argue licensing will improve professional standards, increase accountability, provide greater consumer protection, and align the regulation of OC managers with other real estate professionals that require a licence.

Those objectives are difficult to oppose.

Although the design, scope and implementation of the licensing regime are yet to be determined, licensing inevitably creates additional compliance costs and barriers to entry. Smaller management businesses may face increased regulatory burdens, while larger operators are likely to be better positioned to absorb compliance costs and administrative requirements.

The result may be greater professionalisation of the industry, but potentially less competition.

The proposed expansion of Consumer Affairs Victoria’s powers raises similar questions.

The Government has indicated support for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including greater investigative powers and the ability to take direct regulatory action in certain circumstances. This may improve accountability and deter misconduct.

However, regulatory intervention is rarely cost-free.

The more expansive the regulator’s role becomes, the more important it will be to ensure consistency, procedural fairness and clear guidance regarding expectations. Otherwise, there is a risk that uncertainty increases rather than decreases.

The uncertainty could cause confusion and increase compliance costs. Again, the incidence of compliance burdens on smaller operators could adversely affect their ability to perform their functions and remain competitive.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the reforms is what they reveal about the evolution of strata living itself.

When the act commenced in 2007, strata communities were generally smaller and less complex. Today, many owners corporations manage assets worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. They oversee sophisticated building systems, substantial maintenance obligations, extensive contractual arrangements and increasingly complex compliance requirements.

In many respects, modern owners corporations resemble small corporations more than neighbourhood committees. The sophistication and complexity of the assets is only set to increase and, with it, the nature and scope of the duties of owners corporations.

The Government’s response appears to acknowledge this reality. Increased regulation is being proposed because the stakes are now significantly higher and growing.

The critical question is whether the reforms address the root causes of dysfunction.

Governance failures often emerge long before a regulator becomes involved. They arise when communication breaks down, factions become entrenched, meetings become adversarial and owners lose confidence in decision-making processes.

Licensing, enforcement powers and increased penalties may address some symptoms. Whether they improve day-to-day governance within communities remains to be seen.

The reforms undoubtedly represent a significant moment for the sector. The challenge now is ensuring that increased regulation translates into better outcomes rather than simply additional compliance obligations.

Good governance cannot be achieved through legislation alone.

It ultimately depends on informed owners, capable managers, effective committees and a willingness to engage constructively with differing views.

The legislation may change. The problems of collective action probably will not.

This article was first published on June 24, 2026, and was written by Julia Moroz, Partner and Shuja Jamal, Solicitor in our Melbourne office.