"Two extreme examples can be given to show what clearly falls outside the purpose of the by-law making power:
- Firstly, it could not be intended that the body corporate be empowered to make a by-law saying that residents cannot play chess on their property. This is a completely private activity that could in no way affect other residents. A by-law prohibiting playing chess could not be described as being for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the lots and common property.
- Secondly, it could not be intended that the body corporate be empowered to make a by-law saying that residents cannot conduct private conversations on their property. In some cases private conversations could be conducted so loudly that other residents will be disturbed. A by-law requiring residents to shut all doors and windows when entertaining guests after 11pm might be justified as being for the management of noise. However, a blanket prohibition on conducting private conversations that will normally not adversely affect other people could not be for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the lots and common property.
The present situation in which a by-law prohibits the normal residential activity of keeping a cat or dog is not as extreme as either of the above examples. However, it is of concern that the body corporate has adopted a blanket prohibition on dogs and cats when the keeping of such pets is a normal residential activity in Queensland and these pets can commonly be kept without interfering with the enjoyment of neighbouring residences. Of course, some pets will interfere with the enjoyment of neighbouring residences. However, adopting a blanket prohibition against every single cat and dog is unreasonable, disproportionate to the potential problem, and outside the scope of a by-law for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the lots and common property."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment