Strata company succeeds in by-law case over carpet tiles laid without written approval (SAT, 2026)

What happened

The building is a nine-storey block built in 1965 with 53 apartments plus common property. It is managed by The Owners of Island Strata Plan 43285, the strata company. The respondent bought one of the apartments in early 2024 and lives in it. When he bought it, the living and bedroom areas had broadloom carpet over underlay. The kitchen, bathroom, toilet and laundry had hard tiles, and those areas were not part of this dispute.

In about mid-2024 the respondent removed the existing carpet and put down carpet tiles bought from Bunnings, each 1000 mm by 500 mm. By the time of the hearing the flooring had three layers. At the bottom were rubber-like interlocking mats placed on the concrete slab. Above them was black plastic sheeting. On top were the carpet tiles, held to the plastic with double-sided tape and held at the walls by skirting boards. In an email to the strata council, the respondent said the tiles had been laid over the original underlay, which he had not altered.

The building's by-law 27 says owners and occupiers must take all reasonable steps to reduce impact noise. It requires floor coverings made up of 'carpet on a thick underlay'. It also says no other form of upper surface floor covering may be installed without giving the strata company plans and specifications and getting its written approval. The strata company never gave written approval for the respondent's flooring.

On 5 November 2024 the strata company gave the respondent a written notice saying he had breached by-law 27. The council had believed the carpet had been replaced with hard flooring. When council representatives inspected the unit in February 2026, both sides accepted that the flooring was carpet tiles rather than a hard floor.

What each side wanted

The strata company said that by-law 27 does not allow any floor covering other than carpet on a thick underlay unless the strata company gives written approval, and that it had never given approval. In its application it asked for an order that the respondent remove what it called unapproved hybrid hard flooring and replace it with carpet and thick underlay. The respondent opposed the application. He said his unit has carpet and underlay, which complies with the by-laws. He also said there is no hard flooring in the living or bedroom areas, there were no current noise complaints, and his flooring achieves the noise reduction purpose of by-law 27.

What the tribunal decided

The published reasons record the result as 'Application successful', meaning the tribunal found in favour of the strata company. The text provided does not include the orders the tribunal actually made. It does not say, for example, whether the respondent was ordered to remove the carpet tiles, what he had to put in their place, any deadline, or whether a penalty was ordered. No amount of money appears in the text.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The strata company applied under section 47 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). That section lets a strata company give a written notice to a person it says has breached the by-laws. If the person then does not comply with the notice, the strata company can apply to the tribunal for an enforcement order. The notice must name the by-law, set out the facts relied on, say what action must be taken or stopped, and explain the effect of the section. The tribunal was satisfied that the November 2024 notice met these requirements and that the respondent was bound by by-law 27. So it had power to decide the case.

The tribunal decided the facts on the 'balance of probabilities', which means it had to be satisfied that something was more likely than not. Most of the facts were not disputed. Both sides agreed what the flooring was made of, and that no written approval had been given. The main question was how to read by-law 27. In particular, the tribunal had to decide whether carpet tiles laid on mats and plastic sheeting count as 'carpet on a thick underlay', or whether they are 'any other form of upper surface floor covering' that needed written approval.

If a breach is proved, section 47(5) gives the tribunal a choice of orders. It may order the person to pay a penalty to the strata company. It may also order the person to take specified action within a set time to fix the breach or prevent further breaches.

The published text provided ends before the tribunal's reasoning on these questions, so its explanation for finding in favour of the strata company is not available here.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that a strata company usually has to follow a set process before the tribunal can enforce a by-law. That process starts with a written notice containing specific details. It also shows that disputes over floor coverings can turn on the exact words of the by-law. The question is often not only whether the flooring reduces noise in practice, but whether it is the kind of covering the by-law allows, and whether the by-law requires written approval before the work is done.

The case is also a reminder that facts can change as a dispute goes on. Here the strata company first believed hard flooring had been laid, and an inspection later showed carpet tiles. Even so, the absence of written approval stayed a central and undisputed fact.

In by-law disputes like this, the step most people take first is a written notice that names the by-law and the facts relied on, followed by an application to the tribunal if the issue is not resolved.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SAT application. More decisions: SAT cases and strata and body corporate.

Source: The Owners of Island Strata Plan 43285 and Negria [2026] WASAT 122 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.