According to
realestate.com.au, an Australian renter kept awake by a bright light spilling from a neighbour's apartment has sparked a debate over whether strata committees have any power to force a resident to turn it off. The case, while seemingly minor, raises a far bigger question for the many Australians who live in strata-titled properties: when a dispute between neighbours causes genuine loss or distress, who actually pays, and does body corporate insurance cover any of it?
The Light That Won't Go Off
Why Insurance Rarely Steps In
Body corporate insurance is built primarily around physical risk to common property — fire, storm damage, lifts, shared roofs and public liability for injuries in common areas. It is not designed to compensate for nuisance between occupants, and most policies explicitly exclude disputes arising from "annoyance, inconvenience or loss of amenity" unless they stem from a failure of common property itself. A flickering communal corridor light that causes a fall is a claim; a privately owned balcony light disturbing a neighbour's sleep generally is not.
Legal costs are the other blind spot. If a dispute escalates to a tribunal hearing over a by-law breach, strata schemes may need to draw on their own funds or a legal expenses endorsement, where one exists, to defend or pursue the matter. Few standard strata insurance packages include generous legal expense cover for this type of neighbour-versus-neighbour dispute, meaning the cost often falls to the owners' corporation's general fund, effectively spread across all lot owners regardless of who caused the problem.
How Strata Title Shapes the Outcome
Whether a committee can force a resident to change their lighting depends heavily on the ownership structure of the property, which is where the distinction between Strata Title vs Torrens Title becomes directly relevant. Under strata title, common property is managed collectively and governed by registered by-laws, but anything within the boundaries of a private lot — including balconies with exclusive use rights in many schemes — sits largely outside committee control unless a specific by-law covers it. A Torrens title freestanding home owner facing the same light nuisance would instead rely on local council nuisance provisions or civil action, a completely different pathway.
This structural difference explains why the renter in the reported case may find the strata committee's hands are tied. Unless the apartment building has an enforceable by-law restricting external lighting, security devices or balcony fittings, the committee cannot simply direct an owner to switch off a light inside their own lot, even where it is demonstrably affecting a neighbour's sleep.
For buyers and renters, this underscores why reviewing a scheme's full by-law register before signing — not just the strata search summary — is worth the modest extra cost. Investors weighing a strata purchase should also factor this into due diligence, since poorly drafted or outdated by-laws can leave owners exposed to unresolved nuisance disputes that erode tenant satisfaction and rental retention over time.
What Owners and Investors Should Actually Do
Property managers and strata committees facing these disputes are increasingly advised to update by-laws to explicitly cover external lighting, sensor lights and smart-home devices, rather than relying on general "nuisance" clauses that tribunals can interpret inconsistently. A clearly worded by-law requiring shielded or motion-activated lighting on balconies, for instance, gives committees an enforceable tool rather than a moral argument.
Landlords should check their policy's dispute-resolution and legal expenses provisions before assuming any cover exists for tenant-versus-neighbour friction, and should factor lighting, noise and smoke clauses into their own tenancy agreements so tenants understand what recourse realistically exists.
For renters, the practical advice from the reported case is blunt: without a specific by-law, a strata committee has limited power to force a neighbour to change their lighting, and the fastest resolution is often a direct, documented conversation between residents rather than an escalation to the owners' corporation. Where harm is genuinely ongoing — sleep deprivation, health impacts — a formal mediation request through the relevant state's fair trading or consumer affairs body remains the more realistic route than expecting an insurance payout.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy. Content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or property investment advice.
