Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) sets out a detailed and prescriptive process for the collective sale or redevelopment of a strata scheme.
That process involves prescribed meetings, notices, statutory timeframes, valuations, support notices and, ultimately, an application to the NSW Land and Environment Court.
A practical question which often arises is what happens if a procedural mistake is identified during that process. Does the entire strata renewal process need to start again?
The recent decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No 38065 v Xi Zhang; Yan Shi; Bertram Residential Pty Ltd atf the Bertram Residential Trust; Bertram Commercial Pty Ltd atf the Bertram Commercial Trust [2026] NSWLEC 83 provides some useful guidance.
What happened?
The case concerned a proposed redevelopment of a 14-lot residential strata scheme at 37 Archer Street, Chatswood.
The strata renewal plan was given to lot owners on 3 October 2025. Twelve support notices were delivered to the returning officer on 3 December 2025, with a further support notice subsequently received. Ultimately, 13 of the 14 lots supported the plan.
Two dissenting co-owners sought to have the Court proceedings summarily dismissed.
One of their arguments was that several support notices had been signed before the expiry of the 60-day period referred to in section 174 of the Act and were therefore invalid. They argued that, without those notices, the required level of support had not been obtained and the strata renewal plan had lapsed.
The Court rejected that argument. Justice Robson found that the relevant date was when the support notices were given to the returning officer, rather than when they were signed. The notices delivered on 3 December 2025 were therefore given after the expiry of the relevant 60-day period.
The Court also rejected an argument that each owner was required to personally deliver their support notice to the returning officer. A support notice could be delivered through an agent or intermediary.
Not every procedural irregularity is fatal
Importantly, the Court also considered what the position would have been if there had been a defect in the timing of the support notices.
Section 182(4A) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 allows the Court, in certain circumstances, to be satisfied that the procedural requirements of the Act have been met despite a defect or irregularity, where that defect has not caused and is not likely to cause substantial injustice.
Justice Robson considered that any issue concerning the timing of the support notices would have been a “technical breach and/or a procedural irregularity”.
His Honour considered that the alleged irregularity did not detract from the fact that there was genuine support for the plan and had not caused, or been likely to cause, substantial injustice.
An irregularity in a strata renewal process does not necessarily mean that the process is invalid or that the owners corporation must start again. However, that does not mean that procedural compliance is unimportant.
What does this mean in practice?
Part 10 remains a highly prescriptive statutory process, and the safest approach is to comply carefully with each step.
Where a defect is identified, however, the relevant question is not simply whether a mistake has occurred. It is also necessary to consider the nature and consequence of that mistake.
Relevant considerations may include:
- whether an owner was deprived of a statutory protection or opportunity;
- whether the defect affected the fairness or integrity of the process; and
- whether it has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial injustice.
This means there is an important distinction between a technical irregularity and an error which affects a substantive safeguard under Part 10.
An owners corporation, developer, purchaser, or dissenting lot owner should therefore obtain advice before assuming that an identified defect requires the entire process to be abandoned or recommenced.
Equally, section 182(4A) should not be treated as a general power to excuse non-compliance.
The practical takeaway
The decision provides some reassurance for owners corporations, strata renewal committees and developers progressing a strata renewal proposal.
Part 10 should still be followed carefully. However, an identified procedural irregularity does not necessarily mean that an otherwise supported strata renewal process has failed. The nature of the irregularity, its practical consequences and whether it has caused substantial injustice will be important considerations.
Project Lawyers regularly advises owners corporations, strata renewal committees, developers and individual lot owners in relation to collective sales and redevelopment under Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015.
If you require advice regarding an issue arising during the Part 10 process, please contact our office.
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Author: Maysaa Parrino & Alex Ostermayer
OUR AUTHORS
