Stojiljkovic v Whittle [2021] NSWCATCD 97

Stojiljkovic v Whittle [2021] NSWCATCD 97

The CCTV cameras were affixed to common property without lawful owners corporation consent. By-law 5 did not authorise the cameras because a camera was not accepted as a locking or other safety device, and there was no evidence of a prior special resolution authorising the installation. Two cameras filmed the common property driveway, and filming common property by one lot owner interfered with the reasonable use of the common property by other lot owners. The door camera was not objected to and did not unreasonably interfere with the applicants' use of common property or their lot. The two driveway cameras and the courtyard camera should therefore be removed, subject to the owners...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Strata Title Application Concerning Consent for Installation and Removal of Security Cameras on Common Property / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; respondents ordered to remove two CCTV cameras filming the common property driveway and the courtyard CCTV camera, with a conditional discharge for the courtyard camera if owners corporation approval is obtained.
Legal Topics
['consent for Installation of Security Cameras on Common Property' 'interference in Reasonable Use or Enjoyment of Common Property' 'owners Corporation Approval' 'changes to Common Property']
['land Law' 'strata Title'] ['consent for Installation of Security Cameras on Common Property' 'interference in Reasonable Use or Enjoyment of Common Property' 'owners Corporation Approval' 'changes to Common Property']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Strata Title Application Concerning Consent for Installation and Removal of Security Cameras on Common Property / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What was the effect of the orders made in 2019?' "Have the cameras been installed with the Owners Corporation's consent, and if so, have the conditions of any such consent been complied with?" "Do the cameras interfere unreasonably with Mr and Mrs Stojiljkovic's use and enjoyment of the common property, or their lot?" 'What orders should the Tribunal make?']

Ratio Decidendi

The CCTV cameras were affixed to common property without lawful owners corporation consent. By-law 5 did not authorise the cameras because a camera was not accepted as a locking or other safety device, and there was no evidence of a prior special resolution authorising the installation. Two cameras filmed the common property driveway, and filming common property by one lot owner interfered with the reasonable use of the common property by other lot owners. The door camera was not objected to and did not unreasonably interfere with the applicants' use of common property or their lot. The two driveway cameras and the courtyard camera should therefore be removed, subject to the owners...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; respondents ordered to remove two CCTV cameras filming the common property driveway and the courtyard CCTV camera, with a conditional discharge for the courtyard camera if owners corporation approval is obtained.

Orders

  • ['On or before 30 November 2021, the respondents are, in a proper and workmanlike manner, to remove the two CCTV cameras which film the common property driveway, and the CCTV camera installed to film the courtyard (the courtyard CCTV camera), and are to provide evidence of compliance to the strata managing agent by...