Pets in Strata Schemes and Body Corporates Across Australia

No topic divides Australian strata law more sharply than pets. New South Wales presumes keeping an animal is reasonable and voids a by-law that unreasonably bans one; South Australia's equivalent provision protects only assistance animals, leaving an ordinary pet without the same statutory footing.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026 against the primary legislation. This page presents general legal information, not legal advice.

Jurisdiction scope: This page compares how strata schemes, owners corporations and body corporates can and cannot restrict pets across New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, verified 21 July 2026. It deliberately does not state a position on Victoria, where a pet-specific provision could not be confirmed either way, and it does not tell a reader that their own by-law is invalid or that they will succeed in challenging it; it explains the applicable test only.

New South Wales: keeping a pet is presumed reasonable

Section 137B of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) is the most protective pet provision of any Australian jurisdiction reviewed for this page. A by-law, or a decision made by an owners corporation under a by-law, "has no force or effect to the extent that it would unreasonably prohibit the keeping of an animal on a lot." The section then flips the usual assumption: "it is taken to be reasonable to keep an animal on a lot" unless doing so "unreasonably interferes with another occupant's use and enjoyment" of their lot or the common property. A by-law that prohibits keeping an animal is not automatically "harsh, unconscionable or oppressive" under the Act's general test if it does not unreasonably prohibit keeping one, but a blanket ban with no room for a case-by-case reasonableness assessment sits awkwardly against this presumption. Two related provisions reinforce the same policy: section 105A bars an owners corporation from requiring a bond, fee, or animal insurance as a condition of keeping a pet, and section 139A separately protects assistance animals, letting an owners corporation ask only for specific, defined forms of evidence that the animal is genuinely an assistance animal.

South Australia: the opposite starting point

South Australia's Community Titles Act 1996 (SA) takes a narrower approach than New South Wales, not a mirror-image ban, but a much more limited protection. Section 37(1)(d)-(e) prevents a by-law from stopping an occupier with a disability from keeping a "relevant animal" (an assistance animal or a therapeutic animal, as defined by reference to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA)) trained to assist them, and separately protects a visitor with a disability using such an animal. Nothing in section 37 extends that protection to an ordinary pet kept for companionship rather than disability assistance. This means a South Australian community corporation's by-law addressing ordinary pets is not subject to the same statutory override that applies in New South Wales; it stands or falls on the by-law making power and general validity rules that apply to any other by-law, not on a pet-specific presumption of reasonableness.

Queensland: no codified rule, the general test applies

Queensland's Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) does not contain a New South Wales or South Australia-style provision addressing pets by name, beyond one narrow, technical carve-out. Section 180(2) exempts an animal by-law from being struck down for inconsistency with a council local law or planning by-law about keeping animals, which is a narrow procedural point about one specific invalidity ground, not a general licence for animal by-laws. Every by-law, including one about pets, still has to satisfy the general standard in section 180(7): it "must not be oppressive or unreasonable, having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers." Whether a particular Queensland pet by-law meets that standard is decided case by case, generally through the Commissioner's dispute resolution process rather than by a fixed statutory rule.

The Australian Capital Territory: a consent-based model, not a presumption

The ACT takes a third approach again. Section 32 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (ACT) automatically permits an assistance animal. For any other animal, a unit owner or occupier may keep it only if the owners corporation's rules include a "pet friendly rule" that the animal complies with, or the owners corporation consents. Critically, the owners corporation must respond to a consent request in writing, giving reasons if refused and stating any conditions if approved, and section 32(3)(c) deems consent given if the owners corporation does not respond within 3 weeks of the request. The owners corporation can only withhold consent on reasonable grounds (the Act gives examples: an unacceptable risk of damage, nuisance, escape, or harm to health or safety that reasonable conditions cannot address) and can only impose reasonable conditions on any consent it gives.

Western Australia and Tasmania: narrower or different again

Western Australia's section 46(h)-(i) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) mirrors South Australia's approach rather than New South Wales': it voids a by-law only to the extent it prohibits or restricts an assistance animal used by a person with a disability, or the use of an assistance animal on the parcel by a visitor. An ordinary pet does not get that specific protection, though a by-law restricting pets generally remains subject to Western Australia's own broader "unfairly prejudicial... or oppressive or unreasonable" test in section 46(j), the same style of general test Queensland and Tasmania use. Tasmania takes a different shape again: rather than a provision protecting animals from an unreasonable by-law, section 119 of the Strata Titles Act 1998 (Tas) gives the Recorder of Titles power to order an animal removed where it is being kept "contrary to the by-laws," or where it "causes a nuisance, hazard or unreasonable interference," which is an enforcement mechanism for a validly made by-law rather than a limit on what that by-law can say in the first place.

Victoria: deliberately not addressed here

This page does not state Victoria's position on pet by-laws, in either direction. The Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) gives an owners corporation power to make rules on the subjects listed in Schedule 1, and voids a rule under section 140 that is oppressive, unfairly discriminatory, or inconsistent with the Act or other law, the same general-purpose tools other states use. Neither section 138, section 140, nor Schedule 1 contains a provision addressing pets specifically, which suggests any Victorian pet rule would be tested under the general oppression and discrimination standard rather than a dedicated pet provision, but this page stops short of stating that as Victoria's confirmed legal position, since the absence of a specific provision in the sections reviewed is not the same thing as a confirmed absence across the whole Act and any relevant case law.

This page is general legal information about strata, owners corporation, body corporate and community title law in Australia, verified on 21 July 2026. It is not legal advice, and it does not cover every situation or every by-law or scheme rule that may apply to a particular development. For advice about a specific dispute, levy or by-law, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the relevant Australian state or territory.