Decisions table

COMPENSATION – where the applicant seeks reimbursement for claimed expenses and lost income – whether the amounts claimed are substantiated – whether there is a legal basis to make the orders – whether orders sought are still relevant or required. Act, ss 239C, 270(1)(e); Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

INSURANCE – whether the body corporate’s insurance over the common property ought to cover damage caused by flooding. Act, s 280; Small Schemes Module, ss 114, 116.

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

COMMITTEE EXPENDITURE Standard Module, ss 172-174

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94(2), 97, 130; Accommodation Module, Chapter 3, Part 4

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the respondent is required to contribute to maintenance of a boundary wall shared with the applicant. COSTS – whether the respondent is required to pay for the costs of conciliation and adjudication applications. Act, ss 160, 280; Standard Module, s 211.

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – The applicant says the interior of her lot was damaged because the waterproof membrane on the roof and the external walls were not properly maintained by the body corporate. She asks that the body corporate repairs the membrane, walls, and interior of her lot. Act, ss 270(1)(c), 281; Accommodation Module, ss 50, 60(3), 170(1), 201(3).

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed – who should be appointed, with what powers, and for how long. Act, ss 276, 278, 301

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the applicant seeks an interim order to prevent an extraordinary general meeting from taking place – whether the interim order should be granted in the circumstances. Standard Module, ss 44, 65, 68, 82, 121

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – REASONABLENESS. Act, ss 94(2), 101(2), 276(1)(a); Standard Module, s 184

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

MAINTENANCE – where roofing membrane is on common property allocated under an exclusive use by-law – extent of body corporate’s responsibility for maintenance – liability for damage resulting from failure to maintain roofing membrane RES JUDICATA– where same matter has previously been litigated. Act, s281; Standard Module, ss 180, 187, 192(2) & 192(3)

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

REASONABLENESS; GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – The body corporate failed to take any action with respect to a privacy screen that was removed from a lot balcony, affecting the privacy and amenity of the applicant’s neighbouring lot. A general meeting motion to reinstate the screen was voted down. The applicants argue the body corporate acted unreasonably, beyond its statutory functions, and it should reinstate the screen. Act, ss 94(1)(a), 94(2); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

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

MAINTENANCE – in building format plan - where body corporate is responsible for major repairs to structural elements of the building ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED – to perform obligations of the Body Corporate - where appointment is to run until 31 December 2023 unless the term is extended. Act ss 152, 227, 228, 276, 281; 301 Standard Module, s 159.

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted reasonably in passing a motion relating to repairs of the scheme’s roof; ADMINSTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, ss 94, 152, 276, 301; Standard Module, s 180

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

COMMITTEE MOTION – whether motion proposed spending in excess of committee spending limit and was above major spending limit requiring two quotes; REASONABLENESS – whether committee acted reasonably in the circumstances when it decided to engage a particular law firm. Act, s 100(5); Standard Module, ss 172 and 173

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

DISMISSAL – ADJUDICATORS POWER The applicant lot owners allege the respondent body corporate failed to maintain common property, and that the applicants have thereby suffered property damage and economic loss. The applicants seek orders that the body corporate compensate them for repair costs so incurred and remedy the applicants’ economic losses. The parties note that an adjudicator lacks power to make the requested maintenance order to the extent the cost exceeds the monetary limit for an adjudicator’s order, and contend that an adjudicator also lacks power to make the requested order for economic loss. The parties agree that the issues are so complicated as to be unsuitable for decision in this jurisdiction, and that there is another related dispute with a separate party. The question for determination is whether it is appropriate to dismiss the application on the basis that the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, s 270(1)(b)

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondents have contravened by-laws prohibiting damage and obstruction of common property; whether the respondents have contravened a by-law requiring them to maintain and repair their fence. Act, ss 169, 182.

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

INSURANCE EXCESS – where water ingress from the failure of a tap in a lot caused damage to the lot below –where the body corporate resolved to pass the cost of the insurance excess on to the owner whose tap failed - whether the decision was unreasonable. Act, s 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201, 203

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must undertake repairs. Standard Module, ss 180, 211

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether the body corporate failed to act reasonably in deciding motions – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the body corporate must audit previous statement of accounts. Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, s 176

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the body corporate must audit its statement of accounts. Standard Module, s 176

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing permission for the applicants’ dog – whether any permissible grounds of refusal apply. Act, ss 94(2) and 169B; Standard Module, ss58A and 58B

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the body corporate must audit its statement of accounts. Standard Module, s 176

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether warranted; REASONABLENESS of committee failing to respond to request to vary access condition for keeping pets on basis of new report. Act, ss 100(5), 279

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

REASONABLENESS – where the body corporate committee has imposed an access condition on the applicant’s approval for her dog – whether it was unreasonable for the body corporate to have imposed the condition. Act, ss 94, 100, 242

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

JURISDICTION; BODY CORPORATE DEBT – whether an adjudicator can order a body corporate to not claim costs incurred for the recovery of late contributions from a lot owner; whether such recovery costs come within the definition of a body corporate debt. Act, ss 31, 229A(3)&(7); Standard Module, ss 10(2)(d), 102(2), 162(1)(a), 166(1).

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

MAINTENANCE; REASONABLENESS – Whether the body corporate committee acted unreasonably when it resolved to reimburse some owners’ expenditure on maintenance that should have been carried out by the body corporate, but refused to reimburse the applicant’s expenditure on similar maintenance. Act, s 100(5); Commercial Module, s 127(2)(a)(ii).

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

MAINTENANCE OF LOT – obligation of lot owner to maintain DAMAGE TO PROPERTY - whether damage has been caused to Lot 45 by ingress of water from lot 48 above - whether the owner of lot 48 is liable for repairs to Lot 45. Act, s 281; Standard Module, s211

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

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent has contravened a by-law prohibiting obstruction of common property; whether the respondent is required to remove personal items and rubbish from common property. Act, ss 169, 182.

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

COMMITTEE MOTON – whether the committee has an obligation to consider a motion submitted by a member of the body corporate – whether a committee can decline to decide a motion on the basis of a debt owed by the member of the body corporate Act, ss 94, 100; Accommodation Module, s 50

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

DELEGATION OF POWER – whether body corporate delegated its powers when it decided to authorise its chairperson to expend body corporate funds on repairs and maintenance without requiring a committee resolution. Act, ss 94(2), 97; Accommodation Module, ss 162-164

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether the committee resolved to submit motions to a general meeting – whether the committee motions at the general meeting should be invalidated. Standard Module, ss 54-73, 82, 86, 173

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

BY-LAWS – The body corporate says the respondent breached the by-laws by placing pot plants on common property outside his lot and changing a common property lock at the front door to the scheme building. It seeks the removal of the plants and reimbursement of its expenditure on a locksmith, a conciliation application, and disbursements to the body corporate manager. The questions to resolve are whether pot plants on common property constitute an obstruction, whether changing a lock amounts to damaging common property, and if the answer is yes, whether the body corporate is entitled to reimbursement of its expenses. Act, ss 35(1)&(4), 276(1), 280(1), 281(1)(b).

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

COMMON PROPERTY – OBSTRUCTION – UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE The respondent, a lot owner in a commercial and retail scheme, uses the common property parking area to occasionally stand a shipping container, to receive goods for its business. The applicant, another lot owner, says the containers and the large trucks which deliver and retrieve the containers damage the carpark surface and surrounds, create a hazard, and interfere with the use of common property by others, in particular by taking up a number of car parking spaces. The applicant seeks an order that the respondent stop bringing the containers into common property area. The main questions for determination are whether the shipping containers obstruct or unreasonably interfere with use of the common property by others, and whether there is sufficient evidence of the alleged damage and hazard. Act, s 167(1)

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant says his lot was damaged by water ingress – where the applicant says the water ingress arose from the body corporate’s failure to maintain common property – where the applicant claims reimbursement of repairs he undertook to the lot, loss of rent and interest – whether the dispute should be determined in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 250, 270, 276, 281

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

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to pass motions that would reimburse the applicant for replacing damaged carpets and lost rent following sewage water inundation. JURISDICTION – whether adjudicator has exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance – whether the application seeking reimbursement for lost rental income should be dismissed so it may be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. Act, s20, 94(2), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss 170.

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether levies were raised and increased in accordance with the legislation – whether required documentation about spending was provided to owners – whether reimbursements to a committee member were valid – whether committee expenditure was valid – COMMITTEE ELECTION – whether a committee election was valid – BODY CORPORATE MANAGER – whether an engagement should be terminated – LETTING AGENT – whether an authorisation should be terminated – GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether motions were valid – COSTS – whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded against the applicant. Act, ss 150, 227, 242, 270, 276; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 45, 142, 150, 162

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

BY-LAWS – The affected parties run a café from the applicant’s lot and position tables and chairs for their customers on adjacent common property. The body corporate considers that to be an obstruction of the common property in breach of a by-law and asks that they cease using the common property in this way or lease it from the body corporate. The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate ceases its demands or removes its own chairs and tables from common property. The question to resolve is whether the affected parties or the body corporate are obstructing the lawful use of common property in contravention of the by-laws. Act, ss 35(1)&(4), 94(2); Accommodation Module, s 174.

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – The applicant wants a key to a window restriction device on common property. He claims the body corporate committee’s refusal is contrary to a by-law and that the body corporate otherwise lacks the power to withhold the key. He also seeks repairs to prevent ongoing water ingress to his exclusive use parking space, and reimbursement of his expenditure on car cleaning. Act, ss 94(1)(a), 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 182(1).

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether the respondents have breached the by-laws by bringing animals onto the scheme without approval. Act, ss 94, 100, 169, 180, 182-184

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

RECORDS – whether the body corporate must allow the applicant to inspect the roll; whether the body corporate can redact information from the roll including proprietors’ address details; whether the body corporate must include proprietors’ email addresses on the roll BUGT Act, ss 39, 40

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

INTERIM ORDER – Application for interim order–whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [[2017] QSC 001](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b2017%5d%20QSC%20001 "View LawCiteRecord") Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [[2006] HCA 46](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/46.html "View Case") Act s 279, Accommodation Module ss 125, 127, 163.

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

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate is responsible for maintaining a tree on an exclusive use area of common property – whether the by-laws should be amended. Standard Module, ss 180, 192, 210, 211, 212

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

REASONABLENESS – where the committee voted to move the scheme’s pool equipment to an area nearer to the applicant’s lot – where the applicant disagrees with the committee’s decision to move the pool equipment to this area and wants the committee’s decision overturned – whether the committee acted unreasonably in making the decision to relocate the pool equipment. Act, ss 94, 100; Standard Module, s 172

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicant seeks an interim order to postpone levy contribution – whether the final orders sought have sufficient likelihood of success – whether there are urgent circumstances that warrant interim orders being made. Act, ss 152, 279; Small Schemes Module, ss 81, 99.

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges another resident is breaching the by-laws about parking – where the body corporate decided not to issue a by-law contravention notice - whether the body corporate must take by-law enforcement action against the resident. Act, ss 94, 100, 182-186

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

MAINTENANCE – A planter box on the applicant’s balcony is leaking through a wall into a bedroom. She asks that the body corporate replaces the waterproof membrane in the planter box and repairs the water damage to her lot. Standard Module, ss 180, 211(3).

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

B-LAWS – CONCILIATION AGREEMENT – ORDERS The applicant lot owner alleges the Body Corporate has failed to enforce a by-law which requires lot owners to maintain the exteriors of their lots in clean and presentable condition. The applicant also alleges the Body Corporate has failed to comply with a term of a prior conciliation agreement about the issue. The applicant seeks orders that the Body Corporate comply with its obligation to enforce the by-law and with the conciliation agreement. The questions are whether an order can be made generally to comply with the law or to comply with a conciliation agreement. Act, s 94(1)(b)

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – whether the body corporate should be authorised to hold an extraordinary general meeting without 21 days’ notice Act, ss243A, 312; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 81

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.

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where common property courtyards adjoining lots on a building format plan – where applicants made modifications to dividing fence between courtyards without body corporate permission and cost of removal was sought from applicants LEVIES – whether interest applicable- whether there are special circumstances justifying waiver of interest Act, ss 94; 101B,163, 229A Small Schemes Module ss 16, 112, Schedule 1

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