Strata, Owners Corporation and Body Corporate By-Laws in Australia

A by-law (called a "rule" in Victoria) is not automatically valid just because a scheme has passed it. Every Australian strata Act sets limits on what a by-law can do, and most use some version of an "oppressive or unreasonable" test to police the boundary.

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

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers how by-laws or rules are made and limited in strata schemes, owners corporations and body corporates in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, verified 21 July 2026. It does not cover the content of specific by-laws commonly seen in practice beyond the examples the Acts themselves give.

What a by-law can never validly do

Every Act reviewed for this page draws a similar outer boundary around by-law making power, regardless of what the instrument is called locally. A by-law cannot prevent or restrict the sale, transfer, lease or mortgage of a lot. It cannot discriminate unfairly between different owners or occupiers, or between different types of occupier such as owners and tenants. It cannot be inconsistent with the Act itself, with a regulation made under it, or with another law that applies to the scheme. Within that outer boundary, a scheme has real freedom to make rules about behaviour, common property use, parking, renovations and similar day-to-day matters, but none of the Acts treat that freedom as unlimited.

The general "unreasonable" test, in three different sections

Three jurisdictions covered here use a broadly similar general test to void a by-law that goes too far, even without a specific provision addressing the exact subject matter. Queensland's section 180(7) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) provides that a by-law "must not be oppressive or unreasonable, having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers." Western Australia's section 46(j) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) voids a by-law "to the extent that... they are unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against" an owner, "or... they are oppressive or unreasonable," again assessed against the interests of all owners. Tasmania's section 91(3)(a) of the Strata Titles Act 1998 (Tas) makes a by-law void if it "is unreasonable." None of these provisions specify in advance which by-laws will fail the test; each leaves that assessment to the forum that hears the dispute, on the facts of the particular by-law and scheme.

New South Wales adds a specific animal protection on top of its general test

New South Wales' Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) has its own general test, under which the Tribunal may declare a by-law invalid if it is "harsh, unconscionable or oppressive," but it also layers a specific, codified protection on top for one particular subject. Section 137B provides that a by-law, or an owners corporation decision 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," and 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. See pets in strata schemes across Australia for how this compares with the other states.

Queensland's specific carve-out for animal by-laws

Queensland's section 180(2) contains a narrower, more technical provision worth understanding on its own terms. The general invalidity rule in section 180(1), that a by-law inconsistent with the Act or another law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, does not apply where the inconsistency is between a by-law and a local law or planning by-law "about keeping animals on scheme land." In other words, an animal by-law is specifically exempted from being struck down for inconsistency with a council's local law, but it remains fully subject to the general "oppressive or unreasonable" test in section 180(7) like any other by-law. This is a narrow exemption from one specific invalidity ground, not a general licence for an animal by-law to be as restrictive as a body corporate likes.

Victoria calls it a "rule," and lists what a rule can cover

Victoria departs from the "by-law" terminology entirely. Under section 138 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic), an owners corporation may make rules "for or with respect to any matter set out in Schedule 1," a defined list covering health and safety, committee procedure, common property use, behaviour of owners and occupiers, dispute resolution, and several other categories. Section 140 then voids a rule "of no effect" if it is "oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminates against" a lot owner or occupier, or if it is inconsistent with the Act, the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic), the relevant regulations, or any other law. Because Victorian rules are tied to a defined list of subjects in Schedule 1, a rule addressing something outside that list may also face a validity question distinct from the oppression or discrimination tests.

Assistance animals get their own protection in several states, separate from the general test

Separate from the general reasonableness tests above, several jurisdictions specifically protect assistance or therapeutic animals from a by-law ban, regardless of how the general test would otherwise apply. New South Wales' section 139A voids a by-law to the extent it would prohibit or restrict an assistance animal. South Australia's section 37(1)(d)-(e) of the Community Titles Act 1996 (SA) protects an occupier or visitor with a disability from a by-law that would prevent them keeping or using an animal trained to assist them, but does not extend the same protection to an ordinary pet. Western Australia's section 46(h)-(i) does the same. See pets in strata schemes across Australia for the full comparison, including how New South Wales and the ACT go further than an assistance-animal-only protection.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a strata by-law ban something outright?

It depends on what is being banned and which state's Act applies. Several states, including Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, use a general test that voids a by-law that is oppressive, unreasonable, or unfairly discriminatory, assessed against the interests of all owners. Whether a specific by-law crosses that line is decided by the relevant tribunal or court on the facts, not assumed either way.

What does "oppressive or unreasonable" mean for a by-law?

It is the wording several Australian strata Acts use (in similar but not identical forms) to void a by-law that goes beyond what is fair, having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers, not just the person or committee that made it. The exact test and the forum that applies it differ by state.

Is a by-law valid the moment the committee agrees to it?

Generally not. Most Australian strata Acts require a by-law to be made through a formal process, often including registration, before it has legal effect, and even a properly made by-law remains subject to the Act's validity limits.

Does Victoria have "by-laws"?

Victoria's Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) uses the term "rules" rather than "by-laws." Section 138 lets an owners corporation make rules on the subjects listed in Schedule 1, and section 140 voids a rule that is oppressive, unfairly discriminatory, or inconsistent with the Act or other law.

Can a by-law ban assistance animals?

No, in every jurisdiction reviewed for this page that addresses the point specifically: New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia each void a by-law to the extent it would prohibit or restrict an assistance or therapeutic animal used by a person with a disability.

Does Queensland's by-law exemption for animals mean pets can never be restricted there?

No. Section 180(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) only exempts an animal by-law from one specific invalidity ground (inconsistency with a council local law). The by-law still has to satisfy the Act's general test that it must not be oppressive or unreasonable.