Let's talk about pets in apartment buildings (NSW,QLD,VIC)

One owner’s beloved cavoodle is another owner’s barking-at-3am grievance — and somewhere in the middle sits a building manager refereeing a fight that was never really about the dog.

The law on pets in strata and owners corporation buildings varies meaningfully across Australia. NSW made significant changes in 2021. Victoria’s protections have been built through the courts over the past decade. Queensland — long the most restrictive of the three — caught up in 2024. Here’s the state-by-state picture.

(Full disclosure: we’re dog people. Specifically big dog people — less energy, less yapping, more dignity. This post is factually accurate regardless.)

New South Wales

The old rules are gone

For years, owners corporations in NSW could — and many did — impose a blanket ban on animals. No pets, full stop, baked into the by-laws.

That changed with a Court of Appeal decision in October 2020. In Cooper v The Owners – Strata Plan No 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250, the court struck down a blanket no-pets by-law at a Darlinghurst building, ruling it was oppressive and in breach of section 139(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (SSMA), which prohibits by-laws that are harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.

The key reasoning: lot owners have ordinary property rights, including the right to keep a pet. A blanket ban restricts those rights without connection to any actual impact on other residents. The court was clear that an owners corporation isn’t a “majoritarian dictatorship” — even a unanimous decision can be held to be oppressive based on its effect.

Section 137B: the default shifts

The NSW Government codified Cooper through the Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Sustainability Infrastructure) Act 2021, which introduced section 137B into the SSMA, commencing August 2021.

Under section 137B(2), keeping an animal is taken to be reasonable unless it unreasonably interferes with another occupant’s use and enjoyment of their lot or the common property.

Critically, if an owners corporation refuses or prohibits an animal without valid grounds, section 137B(5)(a) deems the animal approved. That’s a meaningful shift — the default is now permission, not refusal.

What counts as unreasonable interference in NSW

Under regulations made pursuant to section 137B(3), an animal causes unreasonable interference if it:

• persistently makes noise that unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of another occupant
• repeatedly runs at or chases another occupant, visitor, or animal
• attacks or menaces another occupant, visitor, or animal
• repeatedly causes damage to common property or another lot
• endangers the health of another occupant through infection or infestation
• causes a persistent offensive odour penetrating another lot or the common property
• is a restricted, dangerous or menacing dog under the Companion Animals Act 1998 (sections 34 and 55(1)), or
• is subject to a nuisance order the owner has failed to comply with (sections 31 and 32A of the Companion Animals Act 1998)

Personal fear of animals, allergies, and a general preference for a pet-free building are not on the list. The 2021 review under section 276A found these were too subjective and too easily misused to justify restricting another owner’s property rights.

Forgiveness vs. permission in NSW

Under section 137B, ownership is the default-approved position unless there’s unreasonable interference. If an owners corporation later tries to remove an animal without demonstrating unreasonable interference, any refusal or prohibition is effectively void.

That said, if your by-laws require written notice (the default under Option A of the model by-laws in Schedule 3 of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016), give it. It costs nothing and removes the committee’s most obvious grievance. If your by-laws require written approval (Option B), apply in writing and keep records. An owners corporation that refuses without valid grounds has handed you your defence.

Disputes in NSW

If a pet issue escalates, the SSMA outlines a tiered process under Part 12: internal dispute resolution (section 216), then NSW Fair Trading mediation (sections 217–225), then the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), which can order an animal’s removal or permit one where approval was unreasonably refused (sections 156–159).

Victoria

A different path to a similar destination

Victoria hasn’t had an equivalent to Cooper or section 137B. What it has is a framework under the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (OCA) that has — through case law and the model rules — arrived at a similar practical position: blanket bans are very difficult to sustain, and rules must be regulatory rather than prohibitive.

The key instrument is model rule 3.1(4) under the Owners Corporations Regulations 2007, which provides that if the owners corporation has resolved that an animal is a danger or causing a nuisance to the common property, it must give reasonable notice to the owner. Rule 3.1(5) then requires the owner served with such notice to remove the animal.

The important implication: an owners corporation can’t simply vote to ban pets and be done with it. It must first establish — and give natural justice to all parties around — that the specific animal is a danger or nuisance. The absence of that finding means any removal order has no valid basis.

What the courts have said

Two Victorian decisions are worth knowing.

Owners Corporation PS 501391P v Balcombe [2016] VSC 384 is the current standard for rule-making power. The Supreme Court held that a rule must have a sufficiently direct and substantial connection to the statutory purpose of the OCA — the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of common property or a lot. A rule must be regulatory, not prohibitive (even if the consequence of regulation after natural justice is removal).

Owners Corporation SP24474 v Watkins [2016] VCAT 1312 added another constraint: a pet rule can’t unfairly discriminate against an animal owner. VCAT found that a rule treating animal owners less favourably than non-animal owners was invalid, and instead ordered that the owner keep her dog leashed on common property for six months — giving the owners corporation time to pass an effective rule if it chose to.

What VIC owners corporations can do

Owners corporations in Victoria can set conditions on how animals are kept — requiring animals to be restrained or crated on common property, ensuring pets don’t carry communicable infections, prohibiting noises, smells or allergens from extending beyond the lot, and requiring pets to be supervised. These are regulatory conditions connected to common property use, and they’ll generally stand up.

What won’t stand: a blanket ban adopted by vote, with no finding that any specific animal is a nuisance or danger. That’s the line Balcombe and the model rules draw.

No deemed-approval equivalent

Unlike NSW, Victoria has no mechanism equivalent to section 137B(5)(a) where an invalid refusal results in automatic approval. If an owners corporation acts unreasonably, the remedy is through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which has power to invalidate rules and orders.

Disputes in VIC

VCAT handles owners corporation disputes in Victoria. Before applying to VCAT, owners are generally expected to raise the issue with the owners corporation directly, and some schemes will have internal dispute resolution processes. Unlike NSW, there’s no mandatory mediation step before VCAT.

Queensland

The position changed significantly in 2024

Queensland used to be the most permissive state for bodies corporate wanting to restrict animals. That’s no longer accurate.

The Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 — passed 15 November 2023 and commencing 1 May 2024 — brought QLD into line with NSW and VIC on the core question. Blanket no-pets by-laws are now invalid. A body corporate no longer has the discretion to simply decide it doesn’t want animals in the scheme.

Under the reforms, body corporate by-laws cannot prohibit the keeping of animals on a lot or common property, or restrict the number, type or size of an animal that may be kept by an occupier.

Approval is still required — but can’t be unreasonably refused

By-laws can still require an occupier to obtain written approval from the body corporate before bringing an animal into the scheme. What’s changed is that this approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. A refusal based on a ‘no pets’ policy is now, by definition, unreasonable.

The written request is made using the BCCM Form 31 (animal request form), submitted to the secretary, body corporate manager, or — in the secretary’s absence — the chairperson.

The council floor: how number and size limits work

One feature of QLD’s reforms with no equivalent in NSW or VIC is the local council benchmark. Any limits a body corporate applies on the number, type or size of pets must be no more restrictive than what the relevant local council allows. If Brisbane City Council permits a household to keep two dogs without a licence, a body corporate by-law capping residents at one dog per lot is invalid.

Bodies corporate can’t be more generous than council either — local law overrides.

When a body corporate can refuse

The grounds for refusal are now narrowly defined in the legislation. A body corporate may only refuse a pet application where:

• keeping the animal poses an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of another occupier, and that risk can’t be managed with reasonable conditions
• keeping the animal would contravene another law (e.g. a local council prohibition on certain species)
• the animal is a regulated dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
• keeping the animal would unreasonably interfere with another occupier’s use and enjoyment of their lot or common property, and that interference can’t be managed with conditions
• keeping the animal would unreasonably interfere with native wildlife on or visiting the scheme land
• the occupier doesn’t agree to reasonable conditions proposed by the body corporate

Breed preferences, general noise concerns, and aesthetic objections don’t appear on that list.

Conditions that are valid

Bodies corporate retain real authority over how animals are kept within the scheme. Common conditions include: requiring animals to be leashed on common property; requiring regular flea treatment; prohibiting animals from pool and BBQ areas; waste disposal requirements; and conditions around registration, microchipping and vaccination.

Conditions must be reasonable and respond to the specific animal and circumstances — not a blanket mechanism for discouraging pet ownership generally.

Deemed approval: the 21-day clock

The 2024 regulation amendments also addressed a known tactic: bodies corporate that delayed responding to pet applications hoping the uncertainty would deter applicants.

The prescribed period for a committee to decide a pet request is now 21 days. If no decision is given within that period, the animal is deemed approved. Previously, committees had up to six weeks to respond — and a failure to decide within that period was deemed a refusal, not an approval.

If the matter requires a general meeting rather than a committee decision: the animal is deemed approved if a meeting isn’t called within 21 days of the request, or if the body corporate doesn’t decide within six weeks of the meeting notice being sent.

Disputes in QLD

The Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management is the primary dispute resolution authority — not QCAT. Most pet-related disputes go to the Commissioner’s office first, which offers both conciliation and adjudication. Conciliation (application fee: $110.30 as of 2024) provides structured negotiation. If conciliation fails or isn’t appropriate, parties can seek adjudication, which produces a legally enforceable order without requiring a physical hearing. Dissatisfied parties can appeal an adjudication order to QCAT.

The comparison at a glance

| | NSW | VIC | QLD | | Blanket bans valid? | No — Cooper + s.137B | No — Balcombe + model rules | No — BCCMOLA 2023 (from 1 May 2024) | | Default position | Pet approved unless unreasonable interference shown | No blanket ban; conditions allowed | Approval required, but can’t be unreasonably refused | | Deemed approval if refused/not decided? | Yes — s.137B(5)(a) | No | Yes — after 21 days of no committee response | | Tribunal | NCAT | VCAT | Commissioner → QCAT | | Dispute pathway | Internal → Fair Trading mediation → NCAT | Internal → VCAT | Commissioner conciliation → adjudication → QCAT |

The practical picture

Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world — 61% of households own a pet, according to Animal Medicines Australia’s 2019 national survey. More than 15% of NSW residents, and comparable proportions in VIC and QLD, live in apartments. Those numbers aren’t going in opposite directions.

The answer to “can we ban pets?” is now no in all three states — though QLD arrived there later than the others, and through legislation rather than case law.

If you’re a building manager or committee member, your job isn’t to pick a side in the pets debate. It’s to make sure your by-laws reflect what the law in your state actually requires, that any conditions are enforceable and proportionate, and that disputes go through the right process before they reach a tribunal.

A well-drafted pets by-law won’t end every argument. But it will end the ones that were never worth having.

Onsite helps building managers and strata committees across Australia keep by-laws, notices and compliance records in one place. If your building is working through a pets policy review, onsite.fm is worth a look.