Hannan v SP20680: Enforcing repair agreement
Hannan v The Owners – Strata Plan 20680 [2026] NSWCATCD 108
In short
The Tribunal found that correspondence exchanged while a compulsory strata manager was in office created a binding agreement requiring the owners corporation to carry out specified bathroom works.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under ss 232 and 241 of the Act to determine and enforce the agreement.
Background
The dispute arose in a 22-lot strata scheme in Cremorne. The applicants owned lots 10 and 14 and sought two forms of relief. First, they applied for the appointment of a compulsory strata managing agent under s 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015. Secondly, they sought orders requiring the owners corporation to carry out bathroom remediation works which they said had already been agreed.
The alleged agreement arose during a period when the scheme was under compulsory management. In January 2024, correspondence between the parties' solicitors recorded an agreed scope of bathroom works and confirmed that those works would be undertaken as part of broader building remediation works.
The issues
The Tribunal considered two principal questions:
Whether the management of the strata scheme was not functioning, or not functioning satisfactorily, such that a compulsory strata managing agent should be appointed under s 237.
Whether the January 2024 correspondence created an enforceable agreement requiring the owners corporation to undertake the identified bathroom works, and whether NCAT had power to enforce that agreement under ss 232 and 241 of the Act.
Decision
On the compulsory management application, the applicants relied on a number of alleged governance failures and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal accepted that disputes existed but found the scheme remained actively managed, meetings were being held, decisions were being made and substantial remediation works were progressing. The evidence did not establish the level of dysfunction, dereliction of duty or governance failure required for intervention under s 237.
The Tribunal therefore declined to appoint a compulsory strata managing agent.
On the bathroom works claim, the Tribunal found that the 12 January 2024 letter and subsequent email confirmation objectively demonstrated agreement on the scope of works and an intention that those works would be carried out.
The owners corporation argued that the compulsory strata manager lacked authority, that there was no consideration, no intention to create legal relations and that NCAT lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected each argument. It held that the compulsory strata manager had authority under earlier orders conferring all functions of the owners corporation, that sufficient consideration existed in the context of resolving an ongoing dispute, and that the language of the correspondence evidenced a concluded agreement.
The Tribunal further held that s 232(1)(d) empowered it to determine disputes concerning agreements between owners corporations and lot owners, while s 241 authorised orders requiring specified acts to be performed.
Outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the application for a compulsory strata managing agent but ordered the owners corporation to carry out, at its own cost, the works described in the 12 January 2024 letter. The works were required to be completed within three months of the orders.
