Background
The Owners corporation for a 14-lot residential building at Chatswood sought court approval of a strata renewal plan for redevelopment dated 16 September 2025. Following the statutory process, the plan was given to lot owners on 3 October 2025. Support notices from 13 of 14 lot owners were collected by the returning officer, with 12 received on 3 December 2025 and one on 11 December 2025, achieving 92.86% support. Two dissenting owners (Xi Zhang and Yan Shi) filed a motion seeking to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the plan had lapsed because most support notices were given before expiry of the mandatory 60-day consideration period required by section 174(1) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW).
Section 174(1) provides that owners may give support notices “at least 60 days after receiving a copy of the strata renewal plan but before the plan lapses.” The dissenting owners contended that support notices lacking the 60-day delay were invalid, preventing achievement of the required 75% support threshold, thereby causing the plan to lapse under section 177(1)(b). They also challenged the method of delivery—support notices were collected and delivered to the returning officer by a solicitor acting for multiple owners, rather than delivered directly by each owner.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Robson rejected the motion for summary dismissal and held that the plan had not lapsed. The court adopted a purposive interpretation of section 174(1), reading it in light of Part 10’s stated purpose “to facilitate the collective sale or redevelopment of freehold strata schemes.” The court found that the 60-day period represents a minimum consideration window for individual owners, not a requirement that all owners must delay support until day 60. The permissive language “may…at least 60 days” indicates flexibility rather than an absolute constraint.
Critically, the court held that the support notices were validly given at least 60 days after delivery of the plan. Since the plan was given on 3 October 2025 and the bulk of support notices were received on 3 December 2025 (92 days later), the statutory requirement was satisfied. The court rejected the argument that support notices must be personally delivered by each owner, holding that delivery by their solicitor was procedurally compliant. The 13 support notices constituted 92.86% of the scheme, well exceeding the 75% threshold. The plan therefore did not lapse, and the motion was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The 60-day consideration period in section 174(1) operates as a minimum review window for owners, not a bar on earlier submissions that would invalidate support.
- Statutory provisions affecting property rights are interpreted purposively, not pedantically; technical procedural constraints will not be read to frustrate the legislative purpose of facilitating strata renewal.
- Support notices need not be delivered directly by individual owners; delivery through a common solicitor is procedurally permissible.
- Summary dismissal on procedural grounds is inappropriate where the factual compliance with statutory requirements presents a genuine question for determination at trial.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the practical operation of New South Wales strata renewal law and protects redevelopment processes from technical procedural derailment. Dissenting owners and courts have long recognized that property renewal statutes warrant strict construction to protect minority interests. This judgment rebalances that principle, holding that statutory procedures must be interpreted to serve their legislative purpose. The ruling confirms that the 60-day cooling-off period is protective of individual owners’ decision-making rights, not a weapon for sabotaging majority-supported schemes through rigid timing requirements. Developers and owners corporations can proceed with confidence that procedural compliance will be assessed reasonably, while the substantive protections—particularly the 75% threshold and just-and-equitable terms requirements—remain enforceable.
The decision also reinforces that even where minor procedural irregularities exist, courts will apply section 182(4A) of the Strata Act to overlook defects causing no substantial injustice. This pragmatic approach avoids the absurd outcome where a scheme supported by nearly 93% of owners would fail on technicalities unrelated to the quality of decision-making or the fairness of proposed terms.