When Upstairs Noise Crosses the Line: Lessons from Reilly v Perkins Holdings [2025] WASAT 81

When Upstairs Noise Crosses the Line: Lessons from Reilly v Perkins Holdings [2025] WASAT 81

This recent WA State Administrative Tribunal decision goes to the heart of how “floor coverings” by-laws operate when neighbours complain about noise from the lot above. In Reilly v Perkins Holdings (WA) Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 81, the downstairs owners sought orders against the upstairs lot owner under the scheme’s conduct by-law dealing with noise and floor finishes. The Tribunal looked closely at the actual wording of the by-law, accepted both lay and expert evidence about noise transmission, and set out practical steps to bring the lot into compliance.

The Details

Lot 51, directly above Lot 49, had hard flooring installed in 2012. From that point, the owners of Lot 49 complained of persistent impact noise. The relevant by-law required that “all floor space” be “covered or otherwise treated with materials approved by the strata company to an extent sufficient to prevent the transmission of noise likely to disturb other proprietors.” Acoustic experts agreed the measured impact noise exceeded the Building Code of Australia minimum and failed the Association of Australasian Acoustical Consultants’ 55 dB benchmark.

The Tribunal’s Approach

Member Petrucci emphasised that scheme by-laws function as a statutory contract between lot owners, not as subsidiary legislation. Drawing on principles from Byrne v The Owners of Ceresa River Strata Plan 55597 [2017] WASCA 104 (and other case) , she interpreted the by-law in an objective and purposive way: asking what a reasonable lot owner would understand the words to mean in the scheme’s context, keeping tight limits on background material, and ensuring the by-law remained workable in practice.

Two important consequences followed:

• firstly, the by-law applied to all floor coverings in Lot 51, regardless of when they were installed; and
• secondly, although the wording relied on a performance standard (“sufficient to prevent”), it remained enforceable. In practice, benchmarks such as those in the BCA and AAAC guidelines provided the yardstick for what “sufficient” means.

The scheme had also repealed the default by-laws and adopted a tailored Management Statement, later amended, which reinforced this contract-style interpretation.

Findings

On the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that Lot 51’s flooring failed the by-law. Instead of mandating a specific material, Member Petrucci set out a practical pathway, being the owner of Lot 51 must, at their own cost, cover or otherwise treat all floor space with strata-approved materials within 60 days (unless another timeframe is agreed), and commission independent acoustic testing. The certification report is to be provided to both the complainants and the strata company, with reciprocal access for testing.

Member Petrucci indicated final orders will be made under section 47(5)(b) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) after a further hearing to settle the particulars.

Why This Decision Is Useful

The Tribunal’s reasoning makes clear that performance-based by-laws can have real bite. Even without a decibel figure written into the clause, “sufficient to prevent” was enforceable once expert testing and lived experience showed a breach. The decision also confirms that by-laws apply to existing conditions: an owner cannot avoid responsibility simply because their flooring was installed years earlier.

For strata schemes, the practical lesson is to be clear and thorough. By-laws that set a minimum acoustic standard and approval pathway will give greater certainty. When noise disputes arise, detailed complaint logs, testing reports and records of approvals will be invaluable if enforcement becomes necessary. And for owners, the message is equally direct: installing flooring “years ago” is no shield, if it doesn’t meet the standard today, it can still be required to be treated or replaced.

For tailored advice on drafting or enforcing floor-covering by-laws, please get in touch with our Perth team.

—END—

This article was first published on 1 September 2025. It was written by Nicholas Cooley, and peer reviewed by Carolyn Meighan and Julia Moroz.

© Bugden Allen Group Legal Pty Ltd. This is general information only and not legal advice. You should not rely on this information without seeking legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.