When a 10-Year Maintenance Plan Isn’t a Budget: Lessons from Lenane v Harbour Pines [2025] WASAT 53
- leigh_oliver
- Oct 31
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 2
In June 2025, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) delivered a detailed decision in Lenane & Ors v The Owners of Harbour Pines Strata Plan 23297 [2025] WASAT 53. The case provides valuable guidance for strata managers and councils about how 10-year maintenance plans should — and shouldn’t — be implemented.
Background
Harbour Pines is a 52-lot retirement village in Geraldton. The strata company, managed by Adder Holdings Pty Ltd, passed an ordinary resolution in July 2024 to approve a 10-year maintenance plan as required under section 100(2A) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
Three owners challenged the validity of that resolution, arguing:
The maintenance plan was effectively a budget or budget variation and should have required a special resolution;
The meeting notice and voting process were defective; and
The strata company and manager acted in an oppressive and unreasonable manner.
The Tribunal’s Findings
1. The Maintenance Plan Is Not a Budget
The Tribunal firmly rejected the argument that a 10-year maintenance plan is a budget or variation of a budget.
Member Carey clarified the distinction:
The annual budget is what authorises the collection of levies and spending of funds.
The 10-year plan is a forward-looking tool that estimates long-term maintenance needs and funding requirements — but it does not impose levies or authorise expenditure.
While the Harbour Pines plan was valid in form, evidence suggested that Adder Holdings had been treating it as if it were a budget — even levying owners under its figures. The Tribunal warned that this was a serious misunderstanding of the plan’s purpose and that “neither the strata company nor Adder should be seeking to enforce any provisions of the maintenance plan as if it carries the force of a budget.”
2. Notice and Voting Irregularities
The applicants alleged that meeting notices were defective because they omitted the venue and method of voting. The Tribunal accepted there were minor deficiencies but found that all owners knew about the meeting and its purpose. Because the outcome would have been the same even if the errors were corrected, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to uphold the resolution.
As for voting, several owners were excluded for being “unfinancial.” The Tribunal found that Adder was entitled to rule them ineligible to vote under section 120(2) of the Act.
3. Allegations of Oppressive and Unreasonable Conduct
The applicants claimed the EGM was run in an oppressive manner, with the chair cutting off questions and “railroading” the vote. The Tribunal acknowledged the strained relationship between the strata manager and certain owners but ultimately found no breach of section 119 of the Act.
Importantly, the Tribunal noted that the applicants were given a month to raise queries about the maintenance plan but did not do so. While the meeting may have been tightly controlled, this was not “oppressive or unreasonable” given the prior opportunity to engage.
Key Takeaways for Strata Managers and Councils
A 10-year maintenance plan is not a budget.It cannot impose levies or authorise spending. Annual budgets must still be passed separately in accordance with section 102 of the Act.
Be clear about communication and consultation.Even if notices or procedures are imperfect, transparency and engagement with owners can help avoid disputes.
Understand the limits of managerial authority.Managers must act within the Act and should not treat strategic planning documents as financial instruments.
Maintain professionalism in meetings.While it’s acceptable to keep discussions orderly, shutting down reasonable questions can lead to allegations of oppression — even if they don’t succeed in court.
Document everything.Keeping clear records of notices, consultations, and decisions is essential, particularly where tensions among owners run high.
Final Outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the application in full. Although the maintenance plan remained valid, the Tribunal’s commentary served as a warning to strata managers about overstepping the boundaries of their role.
In summary: This decision reinforces the importance of understanding the distinct legal functions of a 10-year maintenance plan versus an annual budget. Strata managers and councils should use the plan as a forecasting tool — not as a financial mandate — and ensure that owner engagement is handled transparently and within the law.
Citations
Notebook LM discussion of the case 👇🏻
Comments