A strata committee tried to use a by-law to take control of how owners could communicate with them — including a rule that let the committee silently ignore "non-compliant" messages, and exposed owners to costs if they followed up. NCAT struck it down. The case is a sharp lesson on what's reasonable when a small scheme tries to manage email overload.
The case
Kentwell v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2056 [2025] NSWCATCD
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Application to invalidate a by-law restricting communications between lot owners and the strata committee.
What the by-law said
The owners corporation had passed a by-law setting strict standards on how lot owners could communicate with the committee. Three elements stood out, per Bannermans Lawyers' commentary (August 2025):
- The committee (or managing agent) could ignore messages they deemed non-compliant — without telling the sender they'd been ignored.
- If a message went unanswered, owners couldn't follow up. Instead, they were required to submit a formal motion for the next general meeting — even for urgent matters.
- If an owner sent the same message again, they became liable for enforcement costs.
In practice, this created a system where a well-intentioned owner asking a simple question could end up in breach of the by-law, owing costs, just for chasing a response.
What NCAT decided
The Tribunal struck the by-law down. It held that the by-law could not reasonably operate in practice — it crossed the line from sensible moderation of communications into being harsh, oppressive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal's reasoning, summarised: communications by-laws must be reasonable in their objectives AND procedurally fair AND workable day-to-day. A by-law that allows silent ignoring of messages, with no recourse and the threat of cost liability, fails all three tests.
The two-month statutory rule
The Bannermans commentary also flags an important provision that any scheme dealing with this kind of issue should know: Section 232(2) of the SSMA provides that an owners corporation is not deemed to have refused to consent to a communication for a period of 2 months. In other words: the law gives committees a reasonable response window before "silence" becomes legally actionable as a refusal. They don't need a draconian by-law to give themselves time to think.
Where the line sits
A well-drafted communications by-law is fine. It might require communications:
- To go to a single official email address (not 7 individuals)
- To be in writing rather than verbal
- To stay respectful and not contain abusive content
- To deal with one topic at a time
What it can't do is hand the committee an unreviewable power to ignore owners, or punish owners for asking twice.
What this means for your scheme
For owners: if your scheme has a communications by-law that feels punitive, this case gives you a clear pathway to challenge it. The test isn't whether the committee is overwhelmed — it's whether the rules are workable and procedurally fair.
For committees: it's completely reasonable to want a tidier inbox. But the way to do it isn't to ignore people — it's to set clear, fair rules that everyone can follow. A by-law that says "communications go to alan@townhousestrata.com.au and we respond within 14 days" is far more defensible than one that lets the committee silently ignore what it doesn't like.
For small schemes especially: a heavy-handed by-law often makes things worse. In a 6-lot scheme, you don't need a procedural fortress. You need clear roles, prompt responses, and the occasional reminder that the committee role is voluntary.
At Townhouse Strata, we'd rather take the email volume than have owners feel locked out. Anything important is better dealt with directly than left to grow into a dispute.
Sources
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s139, s150, s232(2).
Kentwell v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2056 [2025] NSWCATCD. Full text via NSW Caselaw: caselaw.nsw.gov.au
Bannermans Lawyers commentary: bannermans.com.au — NCAT rules by-law to restrict communications between a committee and owners invalid (22 August 2025)