Six years on, the Cooper decision is still one of the most important strata cases in NSW. The NSW Court of Appeal ruled that an outright "no pets" by-law was harsh, unconscionable and oppressive โ€” and invalid. The principle has reshaped pet by-laws in every scheme since.

The case

Cooper v The Owners โ€“ Strata Plan No. 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250

NSW Court of Appeal. Earlier decisions: Owners โ€“ Strata Plan No 58068 v/ats Cooper [2019] NSWCATCD 62 (NCAT first instance) and the NCAT Appeal Panel.

What happened

The owners corporation had a by-law that simply prohibited the keeping of any animals on any lot or common property, with very narrow exceptions. The Coopers had a small dog. The scheme tried to enforce the by-law.

The case worked its way through NCAT and the NCAT Appeal Panel before landing in the NSW Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the by-law was harsh, unconscionable or oppressive within the meaning of Section 139(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) โ€” and was therefore invalid under Section 150.

The key principle

Basten JA, considering the limits of Section 136 (which sets out what by-laws can lawfully cover), said:

"If, in accordance with the applicants' primary submission, a criterion for concluding that a by-law may be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive is that it interferes with the property rights of a lot owner by controlling or prohibiting a particular use in circumstances where that use does not materially and adversely affect the enjoyment of any other lot, such a criterion may be implied from the language, context and purpose of s 136(1)." [at 56]

Put in plain English: a by-law can't ban something just because someone doesn't like it. The prohibition has to be connected to actual harm โ€” a measurable, real-world impact on other owners.

Where a "no pets" by-law might still be justified

The original NCAT decision in 2019 noted some narrow circumstances where a stricter by-law might survive โ€” small schemes, schemes with very high tenant turnover, holiday accommodation, or where new owners expressly agreed in writing as a condition of buying in (citing Owners โ€“ Strata Plan No 58068 v/ats Cooper [2019] NSWCATCD 62 at [112]-[114]).

But the Court of Appeal's broader reasoning makes even those carve-outs uncertain. The safer assumption now: a blanket pet ban will almost always fail.

What's happened since Cooper

NSW Parliament has gone further than the case law:

The fee question โ€” what about an application fee?

A 2021 NCAT decision, Roden v The Owners โ€“ Strata Plan No. 55773 [2021] NSWCATCD 61, upheld a pet by-law that included a non-refundable $300 application fee. But that decision came down just days after the 2021 reforms, which the Tribunal didn't refer to.

The position has since shifted. The Second Reading Speech of the 2023 amending Bill expressly criticised schemes charging "hundreds of dollars" to consider pet applications. As Bannermans Lawyers note (July 2025 update), any requirement for a pet application fee is now likely contrary to the legislation and invalid.

What this means for your scheme

If your scheme still has a blanket "no pets" by-law on the books, it's effectively unenforceable and worth repealing properly at the next AGM. Old by-laws sitting in your records look authoritative to new owners โ€” better to remove them than have someone discover they're invalid mid-dispute.

If your scheme charges a fee to consider pet applications, stop. The 2023 amendments make it clear that's not lawful, regardless of what your by-law says.

What you can do is regulate pets sensibly โ€” reasonable conditions about leashing on common property, cleaning up after the animal, noise control. The test isn't whether owners want pets banned. It's whether the animal causes a real, unreasonable interference with other owners.

Related articles

Sources

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s136, s139, s150, s137B; Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016, cl 36; Strata Legislation Amendment Act 2023; Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment Act 2025.

Cooper v The Owners โ€“ Strata Plan No. 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250. Full text via NSW Caselaw: caselaw.nsw.gov.au

Bannermans Lawyers commentary: bannermans.com.au/library/can-an-owners-corporation-charge-300-to-consider-a-pet-application

AH
Alan Hunter
Licensee in Charge, Townhouse Strata ยท Class 1 Strata Manager