This is an AI-generated summary of a selected monitored public legal source and may omit context. It is general information only, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for reading the source or consulting an attorney.
AI summary
The appeal concerned responsibility for repair and replacement of a prepaid water meter in a sectional title scheme. The court said rule 29(4), not rule 29(3), governed the prepaid meter and that the appellant had not shown a legal basis for the body corporate to bear the claimed costs. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This may be relevant to sectional title and community scheme disputes about prepaid water meters and the interpretation of prescribed management rule 29.
Evidence from source
The dispute concerns responsibility for the repair and replacement of the prepaid water meter serving the appellant's section.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 1
Rule 29(4), by contrast, deals specifically with prepayment meters used to control the supply of water or electricity.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 2
The appeal is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 3