Adjudicator backs Sunshine Coast body corporate in dispute over pet lift ban

A unit owner has lost a fight to let their 4kg dog ride the lift in a three-storey apartment complex, after an adjudicator backed the body corporate’s ban and found the rule struck a fair balance between pet owners and neighbours who did not want to be “cooped up” with animals.

In a Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commission(QBCCM) decision packed with all the ingredients of modern apartment warfare — pets, lifts, allergies, mess and neighbour tension — the adjudicator dismissed the application by the lot owners, who argued the no-lift condition for their dog was unreasonable.

The couple, who live on the top floor, said the restriction forced them to negotiate six flights of stairs, two locked gates, the basement car park, moving vehicles and slippery conditions when it rains.

They also argued they were planning to have a child and questioned how they would manage a pram and the dog along the same route.

They said there was no real evidence justifying the restriction, beyond what they described as an unsubstantiated story that another dog had once urinated in the lift, and pointed out that other dogs had used the lift.

MORE: If you earn less than this, you’re in trouble

‘On another level’: Wild Aussie house cleared of snakes, pigeons and books

The rate that could crush a nation: 25,000 households on brink

The body corporate said the condition was part of a broader pet approval policy introduced in March 2023 to stop animals fouling or damaging common property and to reduce unwanted interactions with residents who had allergies, phobias or other concerns about being in close proximity to pets. Picture: iStock

---

But the body corporate said the condition was part of a broader pet approval policy introduced in March 2023 to stop animals fouling or damaging common property and to reduce unwanted interactions with residents who had allergies, phobias or other concerns about being in close proximity to pets.

“All owners want to keep the complex in the best condition possible and therefore protect their investment,” the body corporate for Eclipse Apartments Maroochydore submitted.

“This is a 3-storey complex, not a high-rise and there is only one lift to serve the 69 apartments.

“The body corporate sought to strike a balance between pet owners and those who objected to animals in the complex at all.”

That argument won.

The adjudicator found the committee had acted reasonably when it approved the dog but imposed a condition banning it from the scheme’s only lift.

While the ruling accepted the setup was inconvenient for the couple, especially given their lot is on the third floor, it found the committee had weighed up competing personal rights and community interests and was entitled to give priority to other residents who did not want to encounter the dog in the building’s single lift.

That finding goes to the heart of apartment living in Australia, where pet-friendly rules are becoming more common but bodies corporate still have room to impose conditions if they are judged reasonable.

The decision noted one owner had claimed to be allergic to dog dander, and every other owner who made a submission opposed the application and supported the lift restriction as the right balance between allowing pets in lots and limiting close contact in shared spaces.

The committee also said the onsite manager had twice had to clean the lift after a dog urinated in it over the previous year.

But the adjudicator said that did not appear to be the major reason for the decision, because the committee had already formed the broader view in 2023 that dogs should generally be kept out of the lift.

The body corporate admitted it had temporarily allowed another owner to take a dog in the lift while recovering from major surgery, and the adjudicator said that showed the committee was capable of making exceptions where special circumstances justified it.

As for the couple’s argument about future parenthood, the adjudicator was unmoved.

“They question how they will manage with a baby, but that is not their present situation,” the decision noted.

“They have sought the indefinite removal of the condition prohibiting their dog from using the lift, not a temporary relaxation while managing a young child.

“If they have a child and the condition becomes unworkable, they might approach the committee about it.”