Blanket Pet Bans Under Fire: What [2026] WASAT 14 Means for Strata Councils
- leigh_oliver
- Feb 27
- 2 min read
Case Overview – DT v The Owners of Civic Square Apartments SP 64584 [2026] WASAT 14
This decision concerns a dispute under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) relating to a council of owners’ refusal to approve an owner’s application to keep a dog within a strata scheme.
The applicant, a lot owner in a mixed-use strata scheme in Perth, sought approval to keep a Golden Retriever puppy in her apartment. She suffers from diagnosed mental health conditions, including ADHD and anxiety, and provided medical evidence that an assistance dog would assist in managing her disability. While the dog was not yet a certified assistance animal, the applicant submitted a detailed and structured training and development plan outlining a clear pathway to assistance animal accreditation, supported by expert evidence from an accredited assistance dog trainer.
The scheme’s by-laws permitted pets subject to written approval by the council of owners, provided the pet did not interfere with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of other owners and occupiers. Despite this, the council refused the application, relying on a range of reasons including an asserted “no dog” policy, concerns about noise, hygiene, allergies, safety in lifts, carpeted common property, lack of facilities, and potential behavioural risks. Evidence before the Tribunal showed that the council and strata manager had, in practice, adopted a blanket policy of refusing dogs unless they were already certified assistance animals.
The Tribunal found that this approach reflected a fundamental misinterpretation of the by-law. Properly construed, the by-law did not create a presumption against pets; rather, it favoured approval unless there was a genuine risk to quiet and peaceful enjoyment. The Tribunal was critical of the council’s reliance on speculative risks, generalised concerns, and a predetermined “no dog” policy, noting that the applicant’s detailed plan directly addressed the stated concerns and provided practical mitigation strategies.
Importantly, the Tribunal held that a strata company must assess each pet application on its individual merits. The adoption of a blanket policy, or fettering of discretion, was unreasonable for the purposes of s 204 of the Strata Titles Act. The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant was a person with a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and that her intention to train the dog as an assistance animal was genuine, credible, and supported by expert evidence.
The application was successful. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant be permitted to keep the dog on her lot, subject to detailed conditions designed to manage noise, hygiene, behaviour, common property use, and ongoing compliance with the training plan.
This case is significant for strata practitioners as it reinforces that:
councils of owners cannot apply blanket “no pet” or “assistance animals only” policies where by-laws permit pets subject to approval;
decisions must be evidence-based, proportionate, and made on a case-by-case basis; and
speculative concerns or personal preferences of owners are insufficient to justify refusal.
The decision provides clear guidance on the meaning of “unreasonableness” in pet disputes and underscores the Tribunal’s willingness to intervene where discretion is improperly exercised.
To read the decision:
For those that like to listen to a Notebook LM overview 👇🏻🎧
Comments