Defamation risks in strata disputes
Recent decisions of the NSW courts demonstrate that communications made in the course of strata disputes can carry significant consequences.
Disputes within strata schemes can be highly contentious. What may begin as a disagreement about owners corporation expenditure, building works, committee decisions or the conduct of a particular lot owner can quickly become personal. Recent decisions of the NSW courts demonstrate that communications made in the course of those disputes can carry consequences well beyond the underlying strata issue.
Background
A recent interlocutory decision of the NSW District Court, Burvill v Cowie [2026] NSWDC 177, serves as a timely reminder of the potential defamation risks arising in strata disputes. In that case, one resident alleged that another resident made a statement at a strata committee meeting that the plaintiff “is a liar with multiple litigations pending against her”.
The defendant applied to have the question of “serious harm” (a necessary element of a defamation claim) determined as a preliminary issue. The Court declined to determine the issue at that stage. Accordingly, the matter is likely to proceed to trial, potentially before a jury: [79].
The decision illustrates how a statement made during what might otherwise be an ordinary strata committee meeting can become the subject of substantial and protracted litigation.
That risk is particularly relevant in strata schemes. Lot owners and committee members frequently communicate with one another about disputes, alleged breaches of by-laws, expenditure, building works and the conduct of other residents. Those communications may occur in committee meetings, general meetings, emails, newsletters, notices or correspondence circulated to other owners.
The fact that a communication arises from a genuine strata dispute does not, by itself, prevent it from giving rise to a defamation claim.
Another strata dispute, another defamation case
Burvill v Cowie is not an isolated example. In Khare v Young [2026] NSWSC 746, the plaintiff and defendant were both lot owners and members of the strata committee. The plaintiff alleged that a series of emails circulated within the strata scheme conveyed imputations that he had misappropriated owners corporation funds and bullied other committee members.
In Khare, the defendant successfully obtained an order that the question of serious harm be determined separately before trial. In doing so, the NSW Supreme Court respectfully disagreed with aspects of the reasoning in Burvill.
The decisions demonstrate that the issue of serious harm can be an important threshold issue in defamation proceedings. They also demonstrate that its treatment may depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
For strata committees and lot owners, the lesson is that the forum in which a statement is made does not necessarily protect the person making it. A statement made at a committee meeting is not immune simply because it concerns a matter being considered by the committee. Similarly, an email circulated amongst residents does not avoid scrutiny simply because it concerns an ongoing strata dispute.
Not every defamatory communication creates liability
That does not mean, however, that every communication made during a strata dispute will result in liability.
In Murray v Raynor [2019] NSWCA 274, a dispute concerning mailbox security in a Manly strata scheme culminated in an email sent by a resident to the chairperson and copied to numerous other residents.
The NSW Court of Appeal accepted that the email conveyed defamatory imputations. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately held that the communications were protected by qualified privilege.
The decision highlights an important distinction: a communication may convey a defamatory imputation without the publisher necessarily being liable in defamation.
Depending on the circumstances, a number of defences may be available. Qualified privilege is one such defence. Whether it applies will depend upon the circumstances of the publication, including the relationship between the publisher and recipients and the nature of the occasion on which the communication was made.
The availability of a defence is not something that should be assumed. Nor is the existence of a genuine dispute a licence to make allegations about another lot owner’s character, motives or conduct without carefully considering whether those allegations are necessary and supportable.
The practical lesson
The difficulty is that defamation litigation can quickly become disproportionate to the underlying strata dispute.
A disagreement about a committee decision, expenditure or building works can become overshadowed by a separate dispute about what was said, who received it, what was meant by it and whether serious harm was caused.
Even where a defendant ultimately succeeds, the process can involve substantial legal costs, delay and uncertainty.
There is also an important practical distinction between criticising a decision and attacking the person responsible for it.
Communications concerning strata disputes should, wherever possible, be:
- factual and accurate;
- directed to the issue in dispute;
- proportionate to the matter being addressed;
- free from unnecessary allegations about another person’s character or motives; and
- circulated only to those who have a legitimate reason to receive them.
This is particularly important where communications are circulated to a large number of lot owners. A statement that might otherwise have remained within a small group can take on significantly greater consequences once it is forwarded, copied or republished.
Conclusion
Burvill v Cowie and Khare v Young, considered alongside Murray v Raynor, provide a useful reminder that strata disputes can extend well beyond the original disagreement.
A comment made in the heat of a committee meeting or an email circulated amongst residents may seem relatively inconsequential at the time. But allegations of dishonesty, misconduct or bullying can have serious consequences if they cross the line into defamation.
The underlying strata dispute may ultimately be resolved, but a defamation claim can create an entirely separate and potentially lengthy proceeding.
The better approach is simple: keep communications measured, factual and focused on the issue rather than the individual.
If you or someone you know wants more information or needs help or advice, please contact Jackson O’Keeffe (02) 9923 2321 or email jokeeffe@somervillelegal.com.au .