Win for Owners Corporation: Proper Project Governance Defeats Compulsory Appointment Bid

Introduction 

When a major strata building project runs over schedule, tensions inevitably rise. Lot owners may argue that the delay itself is evidence that the Owners Corporation is incompetent and should be replaced by a compulsory strata manager. So, how does an Owners Corporation prove it is still in control? 

In this 2025 decision, PBL Law Group successfully defended an Owners Corporation, proving that the existence of professional project governance was enough to defeat an application for a compulsory manager.

The Facts 

The Owners Corporation was managing complex rectification works to a roof. The project had faced challenges, and the Owners Corporation had failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for completion by July 2025. Crucially, however, the Owners Corporation had not been idle. It had successfully negotiated an agreed Scope of Works and, most importantly, had appointed a Superintendent to oversee the construction.

The Problem 

Despite these steps, a group of lot owners filed an application for a compulsory strata manager, initiating a formal strata dispute. They argued that the missed deadline and the ongoing friction over access meant the Owners Corporation was disregarding their interests. They sought to remove the Owners Corporation from the decision-making process entirely. The Owners Corporation faced the risk of losing control of a major capital works project to an external manager who might not share their strategic approach.

Defence at the Tribunal 

Represented by PBL Law Group, the Owners Corporation argued that the scheme was not failing. We shifted the focus away from the delay and onto the governance. We submitted that the Owners Corporation had taken the correct professional steps to protect all owners: it had defined the scope and engaged an independent Superintendent to manage the execution. Furthermore, we argued that replacing a functioning, professionally advised Owners Corporation with a compulsory strata manager would add no practical value and was unjustified.

The Decision 

The Tribunal accepted our defence and dismissed the application. The Senior Member explicitly relied on our governance evidence, stating: “There is insufficient evidence… to support the claim that the owners corporation will disregard the lot owner’s rights… where the scope of works is agreed, [and] a superintendent has been appointed…”. The Tribunal effectively ruled that because these professional structures were in place, the Owners Corporation was demonstrating competence, not disregard.

Conclusion

The case shows that appointing a Superintendent is a critical defensive strategy for Owners Corporations facing litigation risks. NCAT will support an Owners Corporation that has professionalised its project management, even if the project is delayed. This strategic win by PBL Law Group’s strata lawyers highlights the importance of setting up proper project governance before disputes arise, ensuring the Owners Corporation remains in the driver’s seat.