To Terminate or Not ... Is That the Real Question?

Michael Teys is a strata lawyer, blogger and thinker.  And, in a recent blog of his called 'The Missing Link Between Sustainabilty and Termination of Strata Schemes' he made some interesting points about changing the focus of the strata termination debate - that it's really about repair and maintenance.


I think he makes a really good point.  


After all, from a regulatory perspective strata title is almost entirely about repairs and maintenance of common property. Pretty much everything in the strata laws is directly or indirectly in protecting the physical structures and the decided cases make those obligations strict and unavoidable. It's fair to say that the laws want strata corporations to make sure the building always stays like new.

The real problem is that strata owners (and managers) don't do that: allowing buildings to deteriorate to the point where they are unattractive, don't work properly, unliveable or (in the worst cases) unsafe. Why that occurs involves understanding Australian strata owner psychologies a lot better.

But that may not matter since Australian courts and tribunals have consistently ordered strata corporation to fix buildings and pay damages to affected owners.

Maybe the real question isn't - Should a strata building be terminated to replace it with another one? And, instead we should be asking - Why shouldn't this building be fixed up and who should pay for it?

Interestingly, some Canadian provinces require meetings that consider strata corporation termination to simultaneously consider undertaking the necessaary major repairs to restore the building.

Francesco ...