What the Eye Misses: How Our Perception Shapes the Way We Interpret Rules
By Prof. Graham Paddock
“To judge well is not to strip away subjectivity. It is to understand its texture.”
It’s tempting to think of rules in sectional title schemes as straightforward instruments of control—clear, written provisions that owners and occupiers must obey. After all, they’re adopted by majority vote, approved by the Community Schemes Ombud, and binding on all residents, whether they’re aware of them or not.
But in practice, interpreting and enforcing these rules is anything but straightforward. And the reason for this lies not only in the text of the rules themselves, but in the way we perceive, interpret, and respond to conflict.
An Analogy: From Photograph to Painting
Consider the difference between a photograph and a painting. A photograph is designed to record. It offers clarity, shape, and detail. A painting—particularly in expressive styles like impressionism or palette-knife oils—does something different. It interprets. It highlights certain elements, distorts others, exaggerates contrasts, and evokes moods that the eye might not have noticed.
Our visual system is not a camera. It simplifies what it sees, filtering colour, contrast, and detail in favour of recognition and speed—our evolutionary priorities. A cloudy sky might contain ten distinct colours, shades and graduations, but we see “blue and white”. A rock face may be streaked with purples and browns, but we call it “grey.”
Painters, in revealing these ignored colours, don’t falsify reality—they restore its complexity. And this is precisely what’s at stake when we interpret rules.
Regulation 6(1) and the Law of Perception
According to regulation 6(1) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act of 2011, rules made by the body corporate (and approved by the Ombud) become enforceable as body corporate law. They are not recommendations. They are binding—and they are enforceable against all owners and occupiers, regardless of whether those persons are aware of them or not.
But here’s the difficulty: rules are interpreted by people, as are the enforcement decisions, and human perception is never neutral. This includes trustees, managing agents, and even legal advisers and adjudicators.
The Management Temperament
Over many years, I’ve observed that those who volunteer to serve as trustees—or who work as managing agents, sectional title lawyers and adjudicators—are often individuals who are, by disposition, structured, careful, and risk-averse. These are conservative temperaments in the best sense: they value order, compliance, and security. But these traits can also come with unintended costs.
Faced with subjective provisions—such as PMR 30(b): “…an occupier of a section or exclusive use area [must not] cause a nuisance…“ linked to the STSMA’s section 13(1)(e): “An owner must not use his or her section or exclusive use area, or permit it to be used, … for a purpose which may cause a nuisance…”—the structured personality tends to fall back on strict interpretation and rule-bound enforcement. There’s a natural appeal in sticking closely to the rulebook. It feels efficient. It feels sensible. But is it always fair?
Seeing What the Rule Didn’t Say
Imagine a resident is playing music on their balcony at dusk. A neighbour complains. The conduct rule prohibits “loud music.” The managing agent, anxious to avoid setting a precedent, issues a warning.
But what was really at issue?
- Was the music loud enough to disturb a normally robust person of average age and health?
- Or was the resident perceived as inconsiderate because of an unrelated tension?
- Was this an isolated event—or the surface expression of a particular personality trait or a longer, unspoken feud?
When we interpret rules, we think we’re interpreting a photograph. But in reality, we’re dealing with paintings—framed by our own subjectivity, memory, emotion, tone, and history.
Reading the Rule and the Context
A good trustee, managing agent or adjudicator doesn’t ever ignore the rule. But they learn to read it in the particular context.
- They notice whether the complainant consistently reacts to a specific neighbour.
- They ask whether a rule’s application will preserve peace—or escalate alienation.
- They ask whether the complainant has a history of making an unusual number of conduct complaints.
- They check to see whether there are other occupers who have made similar noise without neighbour complaints.
- They consider whether strict enforcement of this restrictive provision will reinforce fairness, or simply punish presence.
They follow a fair process that allows the alleged offender to face their accuser and be heard by an impartial multi-person tribunal which gives written reasons for its collaborative decision. Once a decision has been made, this is communicated to all parties with the reasons, and the matter is finalised. The body corporate should not reconsider a decision unless there is clear evidence that it was based on incorrect information or did not follow due process.
Efficiency is not always the same as justice. And over-regulation, applied without relational awareness, can destroy the very cohesion that the rules were designed to protect.
Final Thought: From Clarity to Care
Body corporate rules are fundamental and indispensable. But so is discernment. The most effective schemes are not those with the most rule-bound trustees. They are those where decision-makers understand the psychology of perception—and apply the rules with context, with care, and with respect for complexity. They apply the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Because sometimes, enforcing a rule requires us to see what the eye would otherwise miss.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 20, Issue 05
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Comments