š¶ The Case That Changed Pet By-Laws Forever: Cooper v The Owners ā Strata Plan No 58068
- leigh_oliver
- Jun 6
- 3 min read
For many years, strata schemes across Australia adopted a simple approach to pets:
"No pets allowed."
If the by-laws prohibited animals, that was often considered the end of the discussion.
Then came the landmark case of Cooper v The Owners ā Strata Plan No 58068, a decision that fundamentally changed how strata communities think about by-laws, property rights, and the limits of an owners corporation's power.
š¢ The Background
The case involved The Horizon, a 43-storey apartment building in Sydney.
The owners of one apartment kept a miniature schnauzer in their lot. However, the building's by-laws contained a blanket prohibition on animals, stating that owners and occupiers could not keep or permit any animal on a lot or common property, except for assistance animals.
The owners challenged the validity of the by-law, arguing that it was contrary to the Strata Schemes Management Act because it was "harsh, unconscionable or oppressive."
āļø What Did the Court Decide?
The New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that the blanket ban was invalid.
Importantly, the Court did notĀ say that all pets must be allowed.
Instead, it found that a by-law which completely prohibited all animals, regardless of whether they caused any problem, went too far. The Court recognised that lot owners hold real property rights and that restrictions on those rights must have a rational connection to protecting other owners' enjoyment of their lots or the common property.
In other words:
ā Regulating nuisance animals may be legitimate.
ā Banning every animal, regardless of its impact, is not.
š The Goldfish Test
One of the most interesting aspects of the judgment was the Court's observation that the by-law prohibited even harmless animals.
The judges specifically referred to examples such as:
š Goldfish kept in a secure aquarium
š¦ Small birds kept in cages
The Court noted that these animals could not realistically affect the use or enjoyment of other lots or common property. Yet they were prohibited under the by-law. That demonstrated the problem with a blanket ban.
š« Administrative Convenience Isn't Enough
The owners corporation argued that a blanket ban was easier to administer.
The Court rejected that argument.
A by-law cannot interfere with an owner's property rights simply because it is administratively convenient. Strata management often requires committees and owners corporations to make evaluative judgments. The fact that assessing pet applications may take time does not justify a complete prohibition.
This principle extends well beyond pets.
It is a reminder that convenience alone is rarely a sufficient reason to restrict an owner's lawful use of their property.
š Why This Case Matters
The Cooper decision reinforces an important principle:
Living in strata does not mean surrendering ordinary property rights.
While owners corporations have significant powers to regulate behaviour and protect the community, those powers are not unlimited.
By-laws must:
ā Be connected to the legitimate management of the scheme
ā Protect the interests of other owners and occupiers
ā Avoid being harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive
ā Be supported by a rational justification
A by-law cannot simply exist because a majority of owners prefer a particular lifestyle or philosophy.
š The Key Takeaway
The Cooper case was never really about dogs.
It was about the limits of power within a strata community.
The decision confirms that by-laws should focus on behaviour and impact, rather than imposing blanket restrictions on ordinary property rights.
For strata committees, it serves as a reminder to ask an important question whenever a new by-law is proposed:
Does this genuinely protect the use and enjoyment of others, or are we restricting rights simply because it's easier?
That distinction may determine whether a by-law survives legal scrutiny.
Read the case here
š§Prefer to listen: https://static.wixstatic.com/mp3/a0f1d2_ea0fcde97265414db33e041fa1fd148c.m4a
Comments