🏢 “I’m Not Paying My Levies Because the Strata Company Isn’t Doing Its Job” — What Does the Court Say?

Aug 28

7 min read

A recent WA District Court decision provides some very useful lessons for strata owners, Councils of Owners and strata managers.

The Owners of 875 Wellington Street Strata Plan 13599 v Kamil [2026] WADC 72 was delivered on 14 August 2026 and involved a long-running dispute between a lot owner and his strata company.

At the heart of the dispute was a question we occasionally hear in strata:

👉 Can an owner refuse to pay their levies because they believe the strata company is failing to meet its obligations?

In this case, the answer was no.

But the 93-page judgment contains quite a few other important lessons for WA strata schemes.

💰 The unpaid levies

Mr Kamil owned a substantial number of lots in an 80-lot short-stay accommodation complex at 875 Wellington Street in Perth.

He admitted that he had not paid strata levies for 2022 and 2023. The strata company's claims were substantial:

💵 $136,406.80 plus interest for the 2022 proceedings; and

💵 $433,386.95 plus interest for the 2023 proceedings.

Mr Kamil raised numerous arguments as to why he believed he should not have to pay.

Among other things, he argued that the strata company had failed to comply with its statutory obligations, had not properly maintained the common property and that he had personally spent considerable amounts of money and time attending to the building.

Ultimately, none of those arguments relieved him of the obligation to pay the levies.

📋 No 10-year plan = no levies?

This is probably one of the most interesting aspects of the decision.

The strata company admitted that it did not have the required 10-year plan in 2022.

Mr Kamil argued that because the strata company had failed to comply with that requirement, its budget and levies were effectively invalid.

The Court did not accept that argument.

Importantly, the Court found that although there is a practical connection between a 10-year plan, the reserve fund and budgeting for future expenditure, the existence of a 10-year plan is not a precondition to raising levies.

The Court concluded:

👉 the absence of the 10-year plan did not invalidate the administrative fund levies; and

👉 it also did not invalidate the reserve fund levies.

As the Court observed, preventing a strata company from collecting levies because it had breached another statutory obligation could potentially leave it unable to perform its other duties — including maintaining the common property.

⚠️ That absolutely does not mean strata companies can ignore their obligation to prepare a 10-year plan.

It means that failing to comply with one obligation under the Act does not necessarily give an owner the right to stop complying with another.

🏦 Administrative Fund vs Reserve Fund

Another interesting issue involved money being transferred between the scheme's funds.

At one point, $120,000 had been transferred from what was described as the “Sinking Fund” into the administrative fund.

The Court was critical of the concept of simply moving money between funds to cover a shortfall.

The judgment makes a practical point that should resonate with Councils:

If the administrative fund doesn't have enough money, the appropriate solution may be to raise additional funds by resolution, rather than raiding money owners have contributed towards future major expenditure.

Otherwise, when that major expenditure eventually arrives, the reserve fund may be empty. 💸

However, even if resolutions authorising transfers between funds were invalid, the Court did not accept that this automatically invalidated all the levies raised by the strata company.

The lesson?

💡 Funds have a purpose.

A healthy reserve fund shouldn't automatically become the emergency ATM whenever the administrative budget runs short.

Good budgeting matters.

🧾 What exactly is a “special levy”?

Here's another interesting point.

The Court noted that the term “special levy” does not actually appear in the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).

Of course, everyone in strata knows what we generally mean by a special levy — an additional, usually one-off contribution raised for a particular expense.

But the wording of the resolution matters.

In this scheme, one resolution simply raised $77,000 as a “special levy” without explaining in the resolution what it was for or whether the money related to the administrative or reserve fund.

The Court described that as unfortunate because it created uncertainty about the provenance of the levy.

Later, an EGM dealt much more specifically with funding approximately $319,319 of fire detection, occupant warning and asbestos-related works.

📝 The takeaway for strata managers and Councils?

Don't just write:

“Raise a special levy of $100,000.”

The resolution should clearly explain what is being funded, how much is being raised, how contributions are calculated, when instalments are due and which fund the contributions are being raised for.

Good resolutions prevent arguments later.

🔨 “I fixed the common property myself — the strata company owes me”

This part of the decision is particularly relevant.

Mr Kamil claimed that he had spent significant amounts of his own time and money attending to matters around the property.

His position was essentially that the strata company had failed to do what it should have done, so he stepped in and did the work himself.

The Court did not accept that this automatically created an entitlement to reimbursement.

There needed to be evidence linking:

the defect → the strata company's duty → its failure to act → the work undertaken → and the resulting financial loss.

Simply carrying out maintenance, repairs or security work voluntarily was not enough.

In one example, Mr Kamil arranged screens to common property despite the strata company refusing to pay for them. The Court considered the argument that this was discretionary expenditure undertaken without the strata company's permission rather than something for which reimbursement automatically followed.

The Court ultimately said:

“It is not sufficient to simply allege that the building was in disrepair, and claim damages, or costs for work done or expenses incurred.”

There needed to be a link between the disrepair and the Council failing to act once notified.

🚨 This is an important message for owners

If something on common property needs repairing:

📧 report it;

📸 document it;

📝 allow the strata company to consider it;

🔧 allow the appropriate authority to issue the work order.

Unless there is a genuine emergency, don't engage your own contractor, carry out common property works and simply send the strata company an invoice afterwards expecting reimbursement.

Being well-intentioned doesn't necessarily create an entitlement to be paid.

👷 Who actually manages the common property?

There was also some useful commentary about the role of the strata manager.

The Court considered it reasonable for the strata manager to require maintenance issues to be reported through the established reporting system rather than directly to his personal mobile phone.

It was also considered reasonable to triage maintenance requests according to urgency.

Most importantly, the Court observed:

“It is the strata company who is appointed to manage the property and the funds, not the strata manager.”

👏 This distinction is important.

The strata manager assists the strata company to perform its functions.

The strata manager isn't personally the owner of the building, the Council of Owners or the person who gets to independently decide how owners' money will be spent.

🏚️ But was the building actually in poor condition?

Interestingly, the Court did acknowledge evidence suggesting that the building had significant problems.

There had been City of Perth involvement, WorkSafe improvement notices, insurance difficulties, maintenance concerns, vandalism and other issues.

The Court said it appeared the building was in “some state of disrepair.”

But that was not enough on its own.

The evidence still had to establish the legal connection between the condition of the building, the alleged failure of the strata company, the work Mr Kamil said he performed and the loss he claimed.

Ultimately, the Court was unable to find that the strata company had breached its duties during the relevant periods.

That distinction is important:

⚠️ A building having maintenance problems does not automatically prove that the strata company has breached the Act.

🧑‍⚖️ And the result?

The strata company succeeded.

The Court found that none of Mr Kamil's allegations or claims succeeded, either as defences to the levy recovery proceedings or through his counterclaims.

The proposed orders were for Mr Kamil to pay:

💰 $136,406.80 + interest

💰 $433,386.95 + interest

⚖️ the strata company's legal costs

and both of his counterclaims were dismissed.

That's more than $569,000 in unpaid levies before interest and legal costs.

💡 What can WA strata schemes learn from this?

For me, there are several practical lessons from this decision:

🔹 Pay your levies. If you believe your strata company is failing to comply with the Act, there are mechanisms available to challenge its decisions or seek orders. Simply withholding levies can create a very expensive problem.

🔹 Have your 10-year plan prepared and use it. The Court found that the absence of one did not invalidate these levies, but that certainly doesn't make the statutory requirement optional.

🔹 Don't treat the reserve fund as spare cash. If the administrative fund is insufficient, address the underlying budget problem rather than continually moving money around.

🔹 Draft levy resolutions properly. Owners should be able to understand exactly what they are being asked to contribute towards.

🔹 Owners shouldn't independently undertake common property works. Report the issue and obtain authority before spending money if you expect reimbursement.

🔹 Keep good records. Work orders, invoices, photographs, Council decisions, minutes and correspondence become incredibly important when disputes escalate.

🔹 Understand the strata manager's role. A manager can advise, administer, obtain quotations and implement authorised decisions, but ultimately the statutory responsibility for managing and controlling common property rests with the strata company.

❤️ And perhaps the biggest lesson...

Strata disputes can become extraordinarily expensive when relationships between owners break down.

This judgment records a scheme with fractured relationships, competing commercial interests, maintenance concerns, unpaid levies and multiple legal proceedings. The Court itself noted that the administration of the scheme had been “fraught” and that this was not the only litigation involving the parties.

Good strata governance isn't just about complying with legislation.

It's also about clear communication, transparent financial management, proper records, defined roles and resolving disagreements before positions become entrenched. 🏢🤝

Because once a strata disagreement moves from the meeting room to the courtroom, everybody's costs can escalate very quickly.

This article is general information about a recent WA District Court decision and is not legal advice. Strata companies and owners should obtain independent legal advice regarding their individual circumstances.

Case: The Owners of 875 Wellington Street Strata Plan 13599 v Kamil [2026] WADC 72, District Court of Western Australia, Cleary DCJ, delivered 14 August 2026.