Can You Sue a Strata Committee Member Personally for Damages in NSW?

The expert reports say the leaking membrane is common property. Water continues to enter the apartment. Yet the strata committee still refuses to approve the repairs. Sometimes the problem appears to be driven by one influential chairperson, secretary or committee member, particularly where that person has a personal or financial interest in avoiding the work.

Can the affected lot owner sue that committee member personally for damages?

Potentially, but personal liability is considerably more difficult to establish than a claim against the owners corporation.

Who is responsible for repairing common property?

Under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (“SSMA”), the owners corporation must maintain and repair common property. Where its breach causes reasonably foreseeable loss, an affected owner may be entitled to claim compensation. Depending upon the circumstances, that loss may include damage inside the lot, lost rent, temporary accommodation expenses and other consequential financial loss.

The owners corporation, not its individual committee members, is therefore ordinarily the primary respondent.  However, that does not necessarily mean that an individual committee member can never face personal consequences.

Strata committee members now have stronger statutory duties

Section 37 of the SSMA was significantly expanded from 1 July 2025.

Each strata committee member must now exercise their functions:

• honestly and fairly;
• with due care and diligence;
• for the benefit, as far as practicable, of the owners corporation;
• in compliance with the Act and regulations;
• subject to restrictions on the use and disclosure of information; and
• without behaving in a way that unreasonably affects another person’s lawful use or enjoyment of a lot or common property.

These duties may become particularly important where a committee member appears to be advancing a personal agenda, disregarding expert recommendations or deliberately obstructing necessary common property repairs. 

However, section 37 does not expressly give a lot owner a statutory right to recover damages personally from the committee member.

Section 260 and the “good faith” protection

Committee members nevertheless receive substantial statutory protection.

Section 260 of the SSMA protects a committee member from personal liability for an act or omission undertaken in good faith for the purpose of exercising their statutory functions. Where the protection applies, the liability attaches instead to the owners corporation.

A committee member is therefore not personally liable merely because they:

• made a poor decision;
• voted against particular repairs;
• misunderstood the owners corporation’s obligations; or
• supported a position that was ultimately found to be legally incorrect.

The critical question may be whether the relevant conduct was genuinely undertaken in good faith. Even if good faith is not established, that does not automatically entitle the owner to damages. The owner must still establish a recognised legal cause of action against the individual, such as negligence, together with causation and recoverable loss.

What did NCAT decide in Silberstein?

The leading recent example is the Silberstein litigation, which concerned serious water ingress and prolonged common property repairs.

In Silberstein v Strata Choice Pty Ltd & Hecker Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 375, the Appeal Panel held that NCAT may have jurisdiction under section 232 to determine a negligence claim arising from the operation or management of a strata scheme. It did not, however, decide that the committee members actually owed the lot owner a personal duty of care.

At the eventual merits hearing in Silberstein v The Owners – Strata Plan No 55468 & Ors [2024] NSWCATCD 66, the Tribunal considered claims against the owners corporation and four individual committee members. The Tribunal found that particular conduct by two committee members had not been undertaken in good faith. One member had recommended an inflexible refusal of the owner’s accommodation claim and vigorous litigation despite information indicating that common property defects could be responsible.

The Tribunal found that the conduct of one member also amounted to a failure to perform his functions with due care and diligence under section 37. That member was removed from the strata committee under section 238.

However, the personal negligence claims against the committee members were dismissed. The owners corporation itself was ordered to pay the owner more than $316,000 in damages.

Unfortunately, the later Appeal Panel decision did not determine whether the committee members could have been personally liable because the dismissal of those negligence claims was not appealed: The Owners – Strata Plan No 55468 v Silberstein [2025] NSWCATAP 102.

Accordingly, the precise boundaries of personal committee member liability therefore remain unsettled.

What conduct might indicate bad faith?

Every case depends upon its own evidence. Potential warning signs may include a committee member who:

• deliberately ignores clear expert evidence that common property requires urgent repair;
• obstructs repairs primarily to protect their own financial or personal interests;
• knowingly attempts to shift the owners corporation’s repair obligations onto the affected owner;
• conceals a material conflict of interest;
• uses their committee position to pursue a personal dispute;
• approaches the owner’s claim with a predetermined or closed mind; or
• deliberately prolongs litigation for an improper purpose.

By contrast, disagreement about the appropriate repair methodology, concern about expenditure or an honestly held but incorrect view may not necessarily establish bad faith. The distinction between a poor decision and actionable personal wrongdoing is highly fact sensitive.

Can an owner claim damages directly for breach of section 37?

This remains the central legal difficulty. Section 37 imposes statutory duties on each committee member, but it does not expressly create a right for a lot owner to recover damates for breach of those duties.   

A personal damages claim may therefore require a separate recognised cause of action. Establishing that claim involves issues extending beyond whether the member breached section 37 or lost the protection of section 260.

It is also generally insufficient to allege that “the committee acted in bad faith”. Any personal case must focus on what the particular member did, the function they were exercising and the loss allegedly caused by that conduct. Joining individual committee members without a properly supported legal and evidentiary basis can significantly increase the complexity and costs of the proceeding.

Are the laws changing?

With the expansion of section 37, the expectations placed on the committee members have increased. Also, the mandatory training of the committee members is to begin from 1 October 2026. This does enhance governance but still does not give rise to a personal compensation remedy.

The pending Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2026 proposes a new section 238A allowing NCAT to award damages for breaches of certain statutory duties.

Significantly, the proposed provision identifies sections 26, 106 and 140, but not section 37.   As at 9 September 2026, the Bill has not completed its passage through the NSW Parliament and is not yet law.

The omission of section 37 reinforces the present distinction between using a breach to seek governance or removal orders and relying upon it as the basis for personal compensation.

What other remedies may be available?

Personal damages are not the only possible response to committee misconduct. Depending upon the circumstances, an affected owner may seek:

• orders requiring the owners corporation to repair common property;
• damages against the owners corporation under section 106(5);
• removal of a committee member under section 238; or
• appointment of a compulsory strata managing agent under section 237 where the scheme is not functioning satisfactorily.

The most effective remedy depends upon whether the immediate objective is completing the repairs, recovering financial loss, changing the committee’s composition or addressing broader dysfunction within the scheme.

The bottom line

A strata committee member does not receive absolute immunity merely because they sit on the committee. However, a member is not personally liable simply because they influenced an owners corporation to make a decision that later proved wrong or resulted in a breach of section 106.

Personal liability may become arguable where there is evidence of bad faith, deliberate obstruction, self-interest or another improper purpose. Even then, the owner must overcome section 260 and establish an independent legal basis for recovering damages from that individual.

Where one or more committee members appear to be manipulating the owners corporation’s decision making, obstructing necessary repairs or prolonging litigation for their own purposes, specialist strata law advice should be obtained before deciding whom to sue and what orders to seek.

Pobi Lawyers advises lot owners and owners corporations on strata disputes involving section 106 common property obligations, strata committee misconduct, damages claims and NCAT proceedings.

Disclaimer 

This article is provided for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Pobi Lawyers accepts no responsibility or liability for any loss arising from reliance on the information contained in this article.