So much is said about condominia, which were enacted precisely to bring legal order to the co-ownership of divided buildings, yet confusion persists, particularly where individual initiative clashes with collective interest. Let us recall some key principles that continue to raise recurring questions in legal practice.
First, under Article 5 of the Condominium Act (Cap. 398), the external walls, façades, foundations, roofs, stairwells, and other structural elements are presumed to be common parts unless the title or a public agreement stipulates otherwise. This legal presumption is not dependent on who uses a particular area or who has access to it. Accordingly, even when an owner has exclusive access to a façade or outer wall, that access does not confer the right to alter its structure or visual appearance. Works that affect the integrity or unity of the façade — such as opening a new garage door or attaching a lift shaft — must therefore be treated as changes to a common part, not as modifications to private property.
Another point often misunderstood is the relationship between planning permits and private rights under condominium law. It is frequently assumed that if the Planning Authority issues a permit for proposed works, then those works may proceed unimpeded. This is incorrect. The grant of a development permission does not extinguish the need for internal legal consent among the co-owners. Article 8(3) of Cap. 398 is unequivocal: no alteration may be made to common parts if it either (a) alters the aesthetics or external appearance of the building or (b) affects the use or enjoyment of those parts in a substantial way — unless all the condomini agree unanimously. This obligation remains binding regardless of the planning process.
Something else that gives rise to repeated confusion is the idea that unless the word “condominium” appears in the sale contract, then the property is not subject to the Act. But Article 2(1) clarifies that the Act applies whenever two or more persons own separate portions of a building and share undivided parts. The legal framework therefore attaches by operation of law, not by contractual declaration. This is crucial, because it prevents owners from escaping the Act’s safeguards merely by omitting certain words from private deeds.
Another issue worth addressing is the legal authority of the administrator. Under Article 17(1), the administrator represents all the condomini and possesses the legal and judicial capacity to bring or face proceedings concerning the common parts. This remains true even if no prior general meeting is held, particularly where swift action is necessary to prevent unlawful interference. While meetings and resolutions are certainly encouraged for orderly governance, they are not a precondition to standing in cases of urgent defence of communal rights.
It is also important to recall that even if the original contract of sale is silent as to limitations or collective obligations, this silence does not exclude the application of Cap. 398. Statutory duties apply irrespective of private drafting. The condominium regime is built on the legal principle that shared ownership carries shared responsibility — and no individual owner may derogate from that structure through omission or unilateral action.
An additional principle worth underlining emerges from disputes involving unilateral initiatives to install structures like lifts. When one owner proceeds to seek consent from others, bypassing formal general meetings or notice procedures, the law does not consider such piecemeal declarations as substitutes for properly convened decisions under Article 22. Even unanimous signatures on informal declarations do not constitute a valid condominium decision unless preceded by the appropriate notice, meeting, and resolution. The principle is clear: condominium decisions must be transparent and collective in form, not simply a patchwork of post hoc permissions.
Something which also merits emphasis is that not all condominium-related disputes must be referred to arbitration. Only those cases expressly listed in Cap. 398 — such as objections to cost sharing, disputes about administrators, or challenges to meeting decisions — fall under mandatory arbitration. Disputes over structural changes carried out unilaterally, without prior authorisation by the general meeting, remain within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The law does not force arbitration in every instance where the word “condominium” appears.
Another misconception that arises is the belief that if one owner funds the works entirely, such as installing a lift at their own cost, then no consent is needed. Yet the law is concerned not with who pays, but with what rights are engaged. Alterations that touch common parts cannot be legitimised solely on the basis of private funding. Consent remains necessary, and the use of common space must be authorised through proper procedure, not private generosity.
Finally, it must be remembered that even where no formal association is registered, and no administrator is officially appointed, the obligations and rights under the Condominium Act still apply. The Act attaches by operation of law to any building that meets its definitional criteria — namely, where two or more parties own units separately and share undivided parts. Formal structures are helpful, but they are not the foundation of legal duty.
These principles are not merely abstract doctrines.
