Another Victory For the Dog

Body Corporate for River City Apartments CTS 31622 v McGarvey [2012] QCATA 47 (12 March 2012)

"The relevant context, in my opinion, is simply that there may be a number of types of scheme, in which owners and occupiers may have a number of different objectives and uses for their lots, and the very nature of any community titles scheme requires that relationships between owners and occupiers must be regulated in some discernible fashion, and by reference to reasonable criteria unless otherwise specifically provided.

So where does this leave a by-law such as by-law 13, which purports to prohibit altogether the keeping of animals on a lot?

In McKenzie, the by-law in question did not prohibit the keeping of pets, but only the keeping of certain types of pets. Therefore, I concluded, it did purport to regulate, rather than to prohibit, a use of lots in the scheme – namely, the keeping of pets.

In prohibiting the keeping of pets altogether, the by-law in this case is analogous to a by-law that prohibited altogether a particular manner of using or enjoying a lot by carrying out building works. In Mineralogy, the Court of Appeal expressed the view that such a by-law would be invalid. Similarly, a by-law that prohibited altogether the playing of music in a lot would be invalid, whereas one that prohibited playing music above a certain level of sound between certain hours would be one regulating the use and enjoyment of lots.

In my view, a by-law that prohibits altogether the keeping of pets in lots is not a by-law regulating the use or enjoyment of lots, but purports to prohibit a particular use and type of enjoyment altogether. It therefore goes beyond the scope of a valid by-law permitted by s 169 and is invalid."

See also Courier Mail story.