Decisions table

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.

• Simone Selkirk lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 2661 owners corp

The appeal by the lot owner regarding damages was dismissed, while the owners corporation's application to extend time to lodge its appeal was dismissed; each party ordered to pay the other's appeal costs.

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 98970 owners corp
• Capitol Property Services Pty Ltd builder
• Lotus Fund No 9 Pty Ltd developer

Summary judgment ordered for the Owners Corporation against the developer Lotus Fund No 9 Pty Ltd for defective building work in a luxury apartment complex development.

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.

Inherent defect in common property - Whether a lot owner or the strata company is required to repair inherent defect in common property - Whether by-law refers to specified lot or lots in the strata titles scheme - Whether by-law grants exclusive use of structural components of common property to a lot owner - Whether by-law confers exclusive use and enjoyment of, or special privileges over, common property - Whether relevant by-law in strata titles scheme is an exclusive use by-law

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.

• Jai Galliott lot owner
• Susie Elelman lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 43251 owners corp
• Cathie Galliott lot owner
• Michele Selwyn lot owner
• William Doyle lot owner
• Goldtex Pty Ltd party

The Appeal Panel dismissed the owners corporation's costs application and ordered each party to pay their own costs of the appeal following the appellants' withdrawal of their appeal from the decision dismissing their claim for appointment of a compulsory strata manager.

• Sally Armati lot owner
• David De Coster lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 15695 owners corp

The notice of motion for costs was dismissed; the court found it was not fair and reasonable to order the respondent to pay the applicants' costs despite the applicants' success in the underlying tree removal proceedings, as the presumptive rule in Class 2 proceedings is that each party bears their own costs and the respondent's conduct did not sufficiently warrant departure from this rule.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 31337 owners corp
• Grace Balacco lot owner

Appeal allowed in part; judgment reduced from $385,484.78 to $250,499.06 following findings that future economic loss and future domestic assistance awards were unsupported by evidence, while maintaining the owners corporation's liability for the slip and fall on the unpainted speed hump.

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.

• Michelle Hall lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 31934 owners corp

The costs application by the owners corporation was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the appeal, as no special circumstances warranting costs against the appellant were established despite her withdrawal of the appeal.

• Hua Nan Trading Pty Ltd t/as Huanan Trading lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No. 32369 owners corp

Leave to appeal from the Supreme Court decision was dismissed; the April 2022 strata application was filed out of time and no question of law was raised suitable for appeal.

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.

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 1954 owners corp
• Ashdown Home Units Pty Ltd party

The court ordered the defendant to construct stormwater works and upgrade piping on the plaintiff's land at its own cost, with the defendant to pay a proportionate share of the plaintiff's costs in obtaining necessary easements for drainage.

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.

• Robert Angelo Paul Russo lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 53188 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appellant's application for an order that costs of the appeal be paid by the respondent, finding that no evidence was presented that the amount claimed or in dispute in the appeal exceeded $30,000 and no special circumstances warranting a costs award were submitted.

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.

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.

COMMITTEE AUTHORITY The committee sent a letter to owners expressing concerns about the caretaker’s performance of its duties. The caretaker’s representatives say the committee failed to formally resolve to send the letter, and acted unreasonably because the concerns it expressed were based on factually incorrect propositions. The question is whether the committee acted unreasonably and was in any event required to formally resolve to send the letter. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), ss 94(2), 100(5)

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.

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.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES; BODY CORPORATE DEBT – The applicant’s contributions to the respondent were increased part-way through a financial year without proper notice. The applicant had not paid them by the time of the respondent’s AGM and was denied a vote. The applicant asks that the AGM is declared void and held again. Standard Module, ss 10(2)(d), 16(2)(b), 102(2), 162(1)(a)&(5); Land Title Act 1994, s 115L(3).

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

PRIVATE NUISANCE – PUBLIC NUISANCE – UNREASOBALE INTERFERENCE – STANDING – INVESTIGATION BY ADJUDICATOR – EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF – QUIA TIMET INJUNCTION A lot owner allegedly caused nuisance and unreasonable interference to others’ use of lots and common property, and damaged common property. The questions are whether the alleged conduct could amount to private nuisance, public nuisance or unreasonable interference. The body corporate is the only applicant. The question is whether the body corporate has standing to apply orders to remedy harm to others. BCCM Act s 167(1)(a) private nuisance requires proof of ‘substantial’ interference whereas s 167(1)(b) unreasonable interference does not. The question is what is the implication of that ‘lack of substantiality’. The respondent did not make a submission in response to the application. The question is whether the adjudicator should draw an adverse inference from their lack of a denial. The applicant did not file evidence for some of the allegations. The question is whether an adjudicator is obliged to invite evidence from the applicant. The applicant sought declarations. The question is whether a declaration would have any utility in the circumstances. The applicant also sought injunctions to restrain the conduct, where the conduct had not continued. The question is whether a quia timet injunction is warranted where the likelihood of a further contravention is possibly low. The body corporate sought orders to restrict the form of the respondent’s communications with the body corporate. The question is whether an adjudicator has power to make such an order. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): s 167, 269 Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [[2025] HCA 53](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2025/53.html "View Case")

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order requiring a lot owner to remove lattice is warranted. Act, s 279.

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, s 100(5); Standard Module, s 174

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279

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

ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, s 278.

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

APPEAL – STRATA TITLE- application to amend unit entitlements- valuation evidence necessary.

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

MAINTENANCE – where the applicant had rectification works carried out to the stormwater utility infrastructure in their exclusive use courtyard – where the body corporate has not reimbursed the applicant for the cost of the work – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 20, 94, 100, 177; Accommodation Module, ss 170(4), 182

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

STANDING – where the applicant has sold the lot, whether the outcomes sought are relevant or required; GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether certain motions were invalid and orders should be made declaring the resolutions to pass them were, at all times, void; ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, ss 94, 100(5), 227(1), 239C, 270, and 276(4)

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

• Brett Lane lot owner
• Kattya Lane lot owner
• The Owners Strata Plan No 2404 owners corp

Leave to appeal was refused on ground 2, but the appeal was allowed on ground 1 regarding whether consent was required to amend an exclusive use by-law; the orders of the first instance tribunal were set aside and the proceedings remitted for re-hearing.

MAINTENANCE – where body corporate undertakes repair work to an existing building on common property – whether maintenance or improvement – type of resolution required for approval. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY – where body corporate extended roof of building and concreted surrounding area – where motion put to general meeting incorrectly referred to approval by ordinary resolution instead of special resolution. REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING PAPERS – where voting paper incorrectly referred to “ordinary resolution” instead of special resolution. Act, s 159, 276. Standard Module ss 88, 186 Oceana on Broadbeach v 21 Broadbeach Blvd P/L [[2025] QSC 68](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/68.html "View Case")

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

INTERIM ORDER – whether an order stopping the body corporate from engaging a contractor for pool refurbishment works is justified. Act, ss 94(2); Accommodation Module, ss 176.

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – whether a group of same issue motions are invalid because they did not allow votes to be cast against them; whether the body corporate should be prevented from putting them into effect pending a final decision on the application. Act, s 108; Accommodation Module, ss 89, 171(2), 173.

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

COMMITTEE MOTIONS / REASONABLENESS – where the applicant sought the body corporate’s consent to lodge a development application with the local council – where the body corporate declined to provide its consent – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably. Act, ss 94, 269, 271; Accommodation Module, ss 44, 50

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURE – whether a meeting was held out of time – whether inadequate notice of the meeting was given – whether the meeting should be invalidated – CONFLICT OF INTEREST – whether committee members failed to disclose a conflict of interest – RECORDS – whether the body corporate failed to provide records in the required time. Act, ss 94, 100, 205, 276; Accommodation Module, ss 58, 73, 81

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