What systemic failures allowed alleged strata by-law contraventions to persist unaddressed for years?
- leigh_oliver
- Dec 14, 2025
- 5 min read
Key systemic failures that allowed the alleged contraventions—specifically relating to the caravan on common property (2019–2025) and short-stay accommodation (2021–2025)—to persist include:
1. Failure of Enforcement and Management
The overall concern articulated by the applicants was that the strata company was not enforcing the scheme by-laws. The second applicant noted that there had been mismanagement of the strata company and incorrect handling of contravention of the by-laws over a long time.
• Lack of Active Participation: The strata company, did not take an active role in the Tribunal proceeding and did not file any documents or written submissions.
• Failure to Issue Formal Breach Notices: Although Ms Crugnale was emailed, no formal notice under section 47(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) was issued to her regarding the caravan. Ms Crugnale explained that the council was cautious about how it spent strata fees, noting that issuing a breach notice cost between $800 to $2,000, leading the council to rely on friendly emails instead. The strata manager had asked the council whether they wished to engage legal services to issue breach notices to lot owners but the council did not respond.
2. Misinterpretation of Authority Regarding Common Property
The council and strata manager appeared to operate under a misguided understanding of their powers to permit the exclusive use of common property, allowing the caravan contravention to continue for approximately four years.
• Incorrect Approval for Caravan: The council mistakenly provided written approval to Ms Crugnale to stand or park the caravan on the common property. The Tribunal found that the council, in doing so, failed to understand that the ST Act imposes a general duty on the strata company to manage and control the common property for the benefit of all owners.
• Requirement for Exclusive Use By-Law Ignored: Ms Crugnale’s caravan occupied common property from about 2019 until September 2025. For an owner to have exclusive use of common property (such as for parking a caravan), the strata company must pass a resolution without dissent and register an exclusive use by-law with the Registrar of Titles. This necessary process was not followed.
• Misleading Advice on Short Stay: Regarding the short-stay issue, Ms Crugnale testified that a strata manager (who subsequently resigned) orally advised her that the way she was operating her Airbnb ("hosted" accommodation) was "okay," despite by-law 15A prohibiting short stay occupation of less than 60 days.
3. Conflict of Interest in Governance
The first respondent, Ms Crugnale, held multiple positions within the strata scheme that may have contributed to the lack of enforcement against her.
• Ms Crugnale was the owner of Lot 1, the building manager since 2019, and was elected as a member of the council in October 2024.
• The second applicant, Ms Beacham, asserted that Ms Crugnale misuses her position as a member of the council and as the building manager to block objections to her actions, including short-term letting.
The findings of the Tribunal ultimately affirmed that the long-running contraventions had occurred, declaring that Ms Crugnale breached by-laws related to the caravan from about 2019 until its sale in September 2025, and breached by-law 15A (short-stay accommodation) from about 2021 until the by-law was repealed in late 2025
Key systemic failures that allowed the alleged contraventions—specifically relating to the caravan on common property (2019–2025) and short-stay accommodation (2021–2025)—to persist include:
1. Failure of Enforcement and Management
The overall concern articulated by the applicants was that the strata company was not enforcing the scheme by-laws. The second applicant noted that there had been mismanagement of the strata company and incorrect handling of contravention of the by-laws over a long time.
• Lack of Active Participation: The strata company, The Owners of One Wilton Place Strata Plan 5978, did not take an active role in the Tribunal proceeding and did not file any documents or written submissions.
• Failure to Issue Formal Breach Notices: Although Ms Crugnale was emailed, no formal notice under section 47(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) was issued to her regarding the caravan. Ms Crugnale explained that the council was cautious about how it spent strata fees, noting that issuing a breach notice cost between $800 to $2,000, leading the council to rely on friendly emails instead. The strata manager had asked the council whether they wished to engage legal services to issue breach notices to lot owners but the council did not respond.
2. Misinterpretation of Authority Regarding Common Property
The council and strata manager appeared to operate under a misguided understanding of their powers to permit the exclusive use of common property, allowing the caravan contravention to continue for approximately four years.
• Incorrect Approval for Caravan: The council mistakenly provided written approval to Ms Crugnale to stand or park the caravan on the common property. The Tribunal found that the council, in doing so, failed to understand that the ST Act imposes a general duty on the strata company to manage and control the common property for the benefit of all owners.
• Requirement for Exclusive Use By-Law Ignored: Ms Crugnale’s caravan occupied common property from about 2019 until September 2025. For an owner to have exclusive use of common property (such as for parking a caravan), the strata company must pass a resolution without dissent and register an exclusive use by-law with the Registrar of Titles. This necessary process was not followed.
• Misleading Advice on Short Stay: Regarding the short-stay issue, Ms Crugnale testified that a strata manager (who subsequently resigned) orally advised her that the way she was operating her Airbnb ("hosted" accommodation) was "okay," despite by-law 15A prohibiting short stay occupation of less than 60 days.
3. Conflict of Interest in Governance
The first respondent, Ms Crugnale, held multiple positions within the strata scheme that may have contributed to the lack of enforcement against her.
• Ms Crugnale was the owner of Lot 1, the building manager since 2019, and was elected as a member of the council in October 2024.
• The second applicant, Ms Beacham, asserted that Ms Crugnale misuses her position as a member of the council and as the building manager to block objections to her actions, including short-term letting.
The findings of the Tribunal ultimately affirmed that the long-running contraventions had occurred, declaring that Ms Crugnale breached by-laws related to the caravan from about 2019 until its sale in September 2025, and breached by-law 15A (short-stay accommodation) from about 2021 until the by-law was repealed in late 2025.
And finally... in the words of Justice Kenneth Martin...
"Courts [Tribunals] cannot force neighbours [owners or the strata company and an owner] to act reasonably or sensibly towards each other. A codified conduct regime by the declaration of a court [tribunal] is an inadequate substitute for common courtesy and basic goodwill being recognised as the expected standard of behaviour between neighbours [owners or the strata company and an owner]".
Citations
TLDR: Listen to an audio overview from Notbook LM
Comments