Decisions table

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must restore the structural soundness of balconies damaged by long-term water penetration; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicants’ expenditure on an engineer to investigate the condition of their balconies. Act, s 280; Standard Module, ss 180(2), 211(3).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether property damage was caused by the body corporate’s failure to maintain the common property – whether property damage was caused by the lot owner’s failure to maintain the lot REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in apportioning the costs of property damage and the insurance excess to a lot owner Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 160, 276 and 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 203 and 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – where applicant alleges notice for a general meeting was not given 21 days’ before the meeting, whether meeting should be declared void; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether committee authorised spending above relevant limit for committee spending, or acted unreasonably in authorising spending above approved budgeted amounts, and whether expenditure was mis-applied to the sinking fund; COSTS – where respondent asserts the application is frivolous, vexatious, and without substance, whether an award of costs should be made. Act, ss 94, 270; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether a motion to grant exclusive use to two lots was valid – whether the motion was validly resolved by the exercise of the original owner’s powers of attorney for each lot – whether the committee complied with its obligations. Act, ss 94, 101B, 170-177, 219, 317

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMPENSATION – whether the body corporate must reimburse an owner for the replacement of carpet in a lot. Act, s 281

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicants are being treated as unfinancial and barred from voting at an extraordinary general meeting – where the applicants deny they are unfinancial and seek an interim order allowing them to vote at the EGM – whether the interim order sought is warranted in the circumstances. Act, s 279; Standard Module, ss 102, 162

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – IMPROVEMENT – DECLARATION – ADVISORY OPINION – JURISDICTION – CONTRACTUAL MATTER The applicant is a lot owner and also the representative for the caretaking service contractor for the scheme. The applicant contends that some of the common property gardens required to be maintained by the caretaker in fact contain improvements which should therefore be maintained by the owners who made them, pursuant to s 187 Standard Module. The applicant put a motion to the committee which if passed would have the committee write to owners informing them that owners’ improvements to gardens must be maintained either my that owner or the body corporate and not by the caretaker. The motion was not passed, on the bases that the changes to the gardens were not improvements and otherwise because all garden maintenance was now the caretaker’s contractual obligation. The applicant says the committee’s position would have the effect of putting that maintenance obligation on the caretaker contrary to its agreement, and would create uncertainty for owners about their obligations to maintain common property improvements. The applicant seeks a declaratory order that the committee’s position on the issue is inconsistent with the legislation. Questions: whether a change to a garden is necessarily an improvement; whether the body corporate entering a caretaking agreement to maintain gardens excuses an owners’ obligation to maintain any improvement; whether a declaration about the committee’s view on legal obligations would be an advisory opinion and hence whether making the order would be within an adjudicator’s power; whether the contractual issue is beyond an adjudicator’s jurisdiction for being a complex dispute about a contractual matter. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): ss 229(2), 276(1) Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020: s 187

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING – whether a general meeting should be declared void because there are no committee minutes resolving to call it; whether the resolutions of the meeting should be declared void due to various alleged irregularities. ADMINISTRATOR – whether to appoint an administrator for six months with all powers and functions of the body corporate committee to address issues such as: failure to make proper decisions by body corporate resolution, with notice to owners beforehand and minutes afterwards body corporate expenditure without an authorising resolution, and incomplete body corporate records. Act, ss 94(2), 97, 101A, 281; Standard Module, ss 82(1), 84(3)(a), 86(1)(a), 88(6)(a), 90(7), 91, 93(1), 93(2)(a)(v), 117(2), 162(2), 163(1), 172(1)(a), 180(1), 186, 231, 232(1), 233.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDERS – where the body corporate decided by ordinary resolution at a general meeting to pay for committee members’ legal expenses incurred in the defence of any defamation claims arising out of the performance of their duties and not covered by insurance, whether an interim order restraining the body corporate from making such payments is warranted and appropriate. Act, ss 101A, 111A, and 279; Standard Module, s 53

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – whether the respondent is smoking on their lot – whether the respondent is in breach of the by-laws – whether the respondent is causing a nuisance, hazard, or unreasonable interference – COSTS – where the respondent failed to participate in conciliation – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 167, 169A, 280

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the body corporate was entitled to charge owners a levy associated with the exclusive use of a rooftop area of common property. Standard Module, ss 163, 192, 210, 212

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – whether an owner must carry out repairs to termite damage to their lot and submit evidence to the body corporate. Act, ss 238(1)(b), 280; Standard Module, s 211(3).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM – whether a cancellation of the interim order is warranted Act, s 279 FURTHER ORDERS MADE: This application for the cancellation of the interim orders made under application bearing reference 0390-2020 dated 01 April 2026 is hereby dismissed.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether decisions made on two general meeting motions were invalid. Act, ss 242, 270(1)(c); Standard Module, ss 86, 88, 89, 90

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted Act, s279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where water ingress and damage occurred to the penthouse lots and lots below via different mechanisms; where the body corporate addressed the cause and damage to the lots below but not the penthouse lots; where there was some indication the damage to the penthouse lots may have been due to their balconies having inadequate falls away from the building; whether the body corporate must correct the falls, including replacing the waterproof membrane and retiling. Act, s 281; Standard Module, ss 10(2)(b), 180(1)-(2), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INSURANCE EXCESS – where water from a burst flexi-hose in a lot caused extensive damage to the lot - where the body corporate refused to contribute to the cost of the insurance excess it said was payable by the owner whose flexi-hose failed - whether that decision was unreasonable – whether a $10,000 excess imposed an unreasonable burden on the owners of individual lots. COMPENSATION – where applicant claims water damage to her property was due to a body corporate maintenance failure – whether the body corporate is liable for the costs of repairing the damage. Act, ss 20, 100, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 188, 193, 201

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate has acted unreasonably by failing to record a new CMS upon material changes to service easements and an exclusive use area Act, s 94

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – rainwater ingress - where rooftop waterproofing membrane requires replacement – whether structures constructed in rooftop exclusive use area need to be removed to facilitate membrane replacement. Where there are maintenance and safety concerns with structures built on rooftop exclusive use area. Act, ss 94, 163, 243, 276, 279; Accommodation Module, ss 80, 106

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – where the respondent has constructed a deck over the water isolation valve for the lot – whether the respondent has failed to maintain the water isolation valve in good condition – whether the respondent has interfered with utility services. Act, s 166; Standard Module, s 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMMITTEE MOTION – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – COSTS – whether the body corporate made valid decisions to incur expenditure on repairs to a lot and negotiating a settlement – whether allegations of contraventions should be referred for further investigation – responsibility for legal representation – whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 94, 100, 270(1)(c)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim relief is warranted. Act, s 279.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicants seek to challenge an AGM motion which proposes to cut down palm trees on common property at the scheme – where the applicants raise issues with the AGM notice – whether the interim orders sought are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 100, 101B, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 81, 89, 176

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REINSTATEMENT INSURANCE - whether the body corporate has correctly determined the contribution to be levied on each lot owner. APPORTIONMENT OF PREMIUM – extent to which body corporate should adjust the contribution payable by the owner of lot 2 under section 191(2)(c) of the Accommodation Module. DEBT RECOVERY – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the application where . Act, ss 94, 269(3)(c), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss188, 191.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REINSTATEMENT INSURANCE - whether the body corporate has correctly determined the contribution to be levied on each lot owner. APPORTIONMENT OF PREMIUM – extent to which body corporate should adjust the contribution payable by the owner of lot 2 under section 191(2)(c) of the Accommodation Module. DEBT RECOVERY – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the application where debt recovery proceedings have been instituted in the District Court. Act, ss 94, 269(3)(c), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss188, 191.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BUDGETS – whether the administrative and sinking fund budgets comply with statutory requirements; whether the resolution adopting the budgets should be declared void. GENERAL MEETING – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in convening a general meeting to remove the chairperson from the committee – whether the resolution to call the meeting and the subsequent resolution to remove the committee member should be declared void. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a vote outside of a committee meeting ratifying an earlier action is valid. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 44(2)(f), 160, 162(2)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is parking vehicles and boats in breach of the by-laws. Act, ss 59, 182A, 183AA, 184

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INSURANCE; MAINTENANCE; EXCLUSIVE USE – whether: one owner in a duplex must reimburse half the cost of body corporate insurance purchased by the other owner the body corporate must restore stairs on common property at the expense of both owners, and the body corporate should adopt a new exclusive use by-law formalising existing de facto use of the common property. Act, ss 35(1), 59, 62(2)&(3)(a); Standard Module, ss 13(5), 82(1), 91, 160(2)(a)(ii), 162(1)&(5), 163, 180(1), 197, 198, 200, 201(1)(a), 206.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. ONUS OF PROOF – EVIDENCE –whether evidence sufficient to satisfy adjudicator of fault or omission by the body corporate

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate claims a 15 year old garden on common property was installed in breach of the by-laws and the committee issued a contravention notice requiring its removal within seven days; where the applicant argues that was unreasonable, the body corporate has approved or acquiesced to the garden, and the disposal of a body corporate asset requires general meeting approval; whether to prevent the removal of the garden on an interim basis while the application is decided. Act, ss 11(1), 94(1)(b), 100(5), 279(1); Standard Module, ss 12(1)(a), 182, 190.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether body corporate complying with the legislation in making decisions about spending – whether body corporate complying with the legislative requirements and acting reasonably in performing its functions in setting budgets and contributions levies – whether contributions levied on owners are unreasonable. Act s 94; Accommodation Module, ss 77–80, 83, 150, 152 and 163

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

HARASSMENT – UNREASONABLENESS – PRESCRIBED NOTICE TO RETURN BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – MOTION OUT OF ORDER The committee and the body corporate passed a series of resolutions to issue prescribed notices to the applicant demanding she return body corporate property, despite her denial that she still possessed it and when there was no good reason to believe that she did. The applicant says this was harassment and unreasonable conduct. The AGM minute recorded the motion was unenforceable but not ruled out of order. The questions are whether: a motion to issue a prescribed notice is valid if the property is not possessed; the committee and body corporate acted unreasonably in passing resolutions to issue the notices; the AGM motion ought to have been ruled out of order. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): ss 94(2), 100(5), 242 Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020: ss 88, 224

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – where common property sewage pumps have failed causing sewage to back up into some lots; whether the body corporate may exceed the committee’s spending limit and raise a special levy to replace the pumps without calling a general meeting and seeking authorisation by ordinary resolution. Act, s 20; Standard Module, ss 91, 162(2), 172(1)(a)&(c), 173, 180(1).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

NUISANCE – BY-LAWS – whether occupiers of a lot are causing a nuisance or breaching the by-laws in their exclusive use courtyard – whether the body corporate has breached its obligations – whether orders against the body corporate are warranted. Act, ss 167, 280, 281

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether motion requiring a vote without dissent for a new exclusive use by-law attaching to a lot giving exclusive rights to use an area of common property failed to pass because of opposition that was, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Act, s 276(3) and Schedule 5 Item 10

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM– whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

FURTHER ORDER – whether a further order is warranted. Act, s 276 FURTHER ORDERS MADE: This application to cancel the interim orders made on 6 February 2026 is hereby dismissed.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate unreasonably disclosed or permitted the disclosure of private and confidential owner information whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in responding to the applicant’s requests, motions and conciliation application – RECORDS – whether the body corporate breached its obligations regarding access to records – COMMITTEE COMPOSITION – whether the filling of committee vacancies was valid – COSTS – whether the application was vexatious, misconceived or without substances – whether the respondent unreasonably failed to participate in conciliation – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 205, 270(1)(c), 280, schedule 1A Accommodation Module, ss 40, 50, 222

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

DISPOSITION OF COMMON PROPERTY – where the applicant says the body corporate has reconfigured fencing at the scheme which has led to Lot 9 having sole access to an area of common property through the courtyard of Lot 9 – where the applicant argues this was done without proper authority which requires a resolution without dissent – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 62, 94, 177; Accommodation Module, ss 170-177

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MISCELLANEOUS – The applicant seeks a host of orders relating to the conduct of general meetings, improvements to the lot and common property, maintenance, insurance, cost recovery, and record-keeping. Act, ss 20, 94, 149B, 152, 159, 169, 205; Commercial Module, ss 22(3), 42, 44(5)&(6), 75(3), 110, 112(1)&(5), 116(1)(c), 127(1)&(5), 133, 134, 145(2), 149, 159, 177(1)(h)&(4)(b), 178-182.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether a motion to change billing arrangements for chilled water for air conditioning in lots was valid – whether the new arrangement complies with the legislative requirements for utility service charges – whether the consideration of the motion was procedurally defective – whether the decision was unreasonable. Act, ss 94, 195, 196; Standard Module, ss 87, 90

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE – whether the proposed spending is needed to meet an emergency. Act, 243A; Standard Module, s 172(1)(c)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent breached the by-laws by painting the garage door of their lot in a different colour – whether they must repaint the garage door. Act, ss 182-4

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REQUESTED EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING – INTERIM ORDER The applicant lot owner and other owners petitioned the committee to call a requested EGM to consider a motion to replace the current committee. The committee called an EGM for other motions but did not included the requested motion, allegedly contrary to its obligation to do so. The requested motion was not included on the pretext it was invalid, as it did not specifically name the committee members to be replaced. The question is whether an interim order to restrain implementation of any other motions passed at the EGM is warranted, in circumstances where those other motions do not relate to the composition of the committee. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 279 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020, ss 44, 84

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders restraining the body corporate from proceeding with a noticed general meeting, or from implementing any resolutions made at the meeting, are warranted and appropriate. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

NUISANCE; BY-LAWS – whether respondent’s conduct has breached by-laws or constitutes a nuisance. MAINTENANCE – whether the respondent has failed to maintain his lot in good condition and/or keep the parts of his lot readily observable from other lots or common property in a clean and tidy condition. Act, ss 94, 167, 182-186, 238; Standard Module, s 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.