Monday, 16th September 2019

register | forgot password?
4 replies [Last post]
Stratastressed
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
Joined: 15/08/2010

Someone told me yesterday that there was a story in the paper about new pet laws in highrises in Queensland. Does anyone know anything this? I don't seem to be able to find the story.

owner1
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 24/03/2010

This is the only story I could find and it was by Lucy Arden at the Gold Coast Bulletin. Not sure if this is what you are talking about.

ANIMAL lovers across the Gold Coast who have been putting up with tough body corporate rules banning pets from high-rise apartments have been encouraged to fight for their furry and feathered friends following a court victory for pet-lovers.

Justin Miller, who just won a case against Isle of Palms Resort to have his dog Coco living at the Elanora property, said other people who faced the same issue did not put up a fight because they thought it would involve a long and costly legal battle.

But Mr Miller's only cost was the $120 application fee to the Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commission.

''We represented ourselves,'' he said.

''Our view was that if we were just presenting the case as it was and had nothing to hide, why should we need a lawyer?''

Mr Miller went to the Commission after the Isle of Palms Resort body corporate committee passed a by-law that would introduce a blanket ban on animals, including Coco.

The Commissioner in the case ruled in favour of the Millers, declaring the by-law 'oppressive and unreasonable in all the circumstances'.

''... It seems quite clear that it is not objectively reasonable for the body corporate to absolutely prohibit the keeping of any animal in any circumstances,'' the adjudicator stated.

Mr Miller said he had received a flood of calls from across the Coast since the decision from people wanting to know about the case because they were fighting to have their dog or cat approved in their high-rise home.

''People have been asking us for advice on how we fought it and won,'' he said.

Daniel Russell ...
Daniel Russell - Chambers Russell Lawyers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 10 weeks ago
Joined: 07/07/2010

The adjudicator's decision is Isle of Palms Resort [2010] QBCCMCmr 200 (30 April 2010) and is available at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2010/200.html

The case was under the Accommodation Module, however there is a similar matter from 2009 under the Standard Module, Koongamiah [2009] QBCCMCmr 215 (10 June 2009), available here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2009/215.html

The following extract from Koongamiah explains the basis of the decisions quite well:

"By-laws are adopted by way of a decision of the body corporate. A body corporate is required to act reasonably in making or not making a decision (Act 94(2), 100(5)). Further, examples of orders an adjudicator may make to resolve a dispute include orders requiring the body corporate to lodge a request to remove a by-law if the adjudicator is satisfied the by-law is oppressive or unreasonable (Act 276, Schedule 5 – Item 20).

"Reasonableness is a question of fact. The objective test requires a balancing of factors in all the circumstances according to the ordinary meaning of the term ‘reasonable’. The question is not whether the decision was the "correct" one but whether it is objectively reasonable. This indicates that, for a decision to adopt a by-law, there will be a range of potential by-laws that are “reasonable” but some potential by-laws that fall outside the range of what a body corporate acting reasonably could adopt."

In accordance with the reasoning in these cases--although each matter must be considered in its own circumstances--there is a strong argument that a by-law that prevents any pets whatsoever is unreasonable and oppressive and therefore can be overturned by an adjudicator.

Best regards,
Daniel Russell
Mills Oakley Lawyers
[email protected]

n/a
nino presutti
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 18/05/2011

WELL DONE JUSTIN AS THE OWNER OF A UNIT & HAVING A LITTLE PET THAT MY HUSBAND HAS AS PART OF HIS THERAPHY DUE TO HIS ILLNESS & WITH DR. ADVICE WE WILL TAKE THE SAME APPROACH IF WE NEED TO.PET THERAPY IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THERAPY IN US UK & ALL OVER EUROPE DOES THIS COUNTRY LEAVE IN PREISTORIC TIMES? WAKE UP TO YOURSELF & JOIN THE REST OF THE WORLD & U PEOPLE DONT DISCRIMINATE OTHERS THAT HAVE SPECIAL FEELINGS FOR OUR SPECIAL FURRIED FRIENDS ALL NURSING HOMES ARE NOW USING PET THERAPHY & WHO KNOWS THAT ONE DAY ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT NOW DISCRIMINATE WILL BE THE ONCE THAT WILL NEED THEM.......THIS ARE WORDS OF WISDOM FROM MY BELOVED GRANDMOTHER,DON'T SPIT IN THE AIR AS IT WILL FALL BACK ON YOU FACE.......

nino presutti
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 18/05/2011

owner1 wrote:
This is the only story I could find and it was by Lucy Arden at the Gold Coast Bulletin. Not sure if this is what you are talking about.

ANIMAL lovers across the Gold Coast who have been putting up with tough body corporate rules banning pets from high-rise apartments have been encouraged to fight for their furry and feathered friends following a court victory for pet-lovers.

Justin Miller, who just won a case against Isle of Palms Resort to have his dog Coco living at the Elanora property, said other people who faced the same issue did not put up a fight because they thought it would involve a long and costly legal battle.

But Mr Miller's only cost was the $120 application fee to the Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commission.

''We represented ourselves,'' he said.

''Our view was that if we were just presenting the case as it was and had nothing to hide, why should we need a lawyer?''

Mr Miller went to the Commission after the Isle of Palms Resort body corporate committee passed a by-law that would introduce a blanket ban on animals, including Coco.

The Commissioner in the case ruled in favour of the Millers, declaring the by-law 'oppressive and unreasonable in all the circumstances'.

''... It seems quite clear that it is not objectively reasonable for the body corporate to absolutely prohibit the keeping of any animal in any circumstances,'' the adjudicator stated.

Mr Miller said he had received a flood of calls from across the Coast since the decision from people wanting to know about the case because they were fighting to have their dog or cat approved in their high-rise home.

''People have been asking us for advice on how we fought it and won,'' he said.