Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

Body Corporate and Community Management (Small Scheme Module) Regulation 2020 (Small Scheme Module)

MAINTENANCE - whether maintenance is required on the intercom system on common property - COSTS - whether the body corporate should pay the application fees.

Act, ss 11, 94, 280; Small Scheme Module, ss 99, 103, 107, 109

• [1] This application is about an intercom system on common property.
• [2] The applicant reported in October 2024 that the intercom was not working normally. A contractor apparently said it required replacement. An extraordinary general meeting (EGM) was held on 2 April 2025. Motion 2 proposing the disposal of the common property by not replacing the intercom did not pass. Motion 3 to engage a contractor to replace the intercom was also defeated. The applicant says the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the common property and can only agree to dispose of it by a resolution without dissent.
• [3] The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate fix the intercom by replacing it. The applicant also seeks reimbursement of the application fees paid. The substantive question in this dispute is whether the body corporate has failed to maintain the common property.

• [4] Admiralty Gardens community titles scheme 15228 (Admiralty Gardens) is a 4-lot scheme at Bellara. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Small Schemes Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 105660.
• [5] The application seeks the following orders:
  1. An order that ADMIRALTY GARDENS Body Corporate to approve and make the payments for the maintenance work of fixing the current out of order Common Property Intercom
  2. An order that ADMIRALTY GARDENS Body Corporate to approve this maintenance work by using the current most convenient quotation offer as already found by our Body Corporate Manager:

- Contractor Company: FULLY WIRED ELECTRICAL SERVICES

1. An order that ADMIRALTY GARDENS Body Corporate to agree the refund and pay to Lot 2 owners the refund of the $110.30 conciliation fee (for lodging the Form 22) and the refund of the $110.30 adjudication fee (for lodging the Form 15) as by my request.

• [6] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[2]

• [7] The applicant originally applied for conciliation of this dispute in April 2025.[3] The parties participated in conciliation in late May 2025 and reached an agreement. But this application was lodged soon after, on 6 June 2025.
• [8] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[4] which was then amended.[5] The Commissioner the invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[6] One submission was made. The applicant obtained and responded to the submission.[7]
• [9] The application was referred to department adjudication.[8] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material and seeking clarification about the condition of the intercom from the applicant.[9]

• [10] The owner of Lot 3 says the intercom is now working. They provide an undated letter from an electrician who apparently inspected the intercom at the request of the owner in June 2025. The electrician said they conducted testing and ascertained that the main entry access panel was faulty. They said they ordered a replacement panel from the manufacturer (at a cost of $132) and fitted it, and that the system now appeared to be functioning properly.
• [11] The owner then says they do not consider the 30-year-old intercom system to be a 'genuine' building asset even though it is now working. They refer to its technological obsolescence, misuse, and limited functionality. They suggest the committee reassess whether maintaining the outdated system is a prudent use of body corporate funds.
• [12] In response, the applicant queries why the inspection of the intercom was not communicated and the adequacy or authenticity of the electrician's 'report'. They say the work was of a temporary nature and not designed to ensure long-term functionality or avoid future failures.
• [13] The applicant further asserts the intercom is a legitimate and essential building asset. They say it is not unexpected that the system would deteriorate over 30 years, as confirmed by 3 contractors, and it was anticipated that the contractors would recommend replacing the original intercom with a functionally equivalent system. They oppose the committee assessing whether the building should continue maintaining the intercom system, asserting a conflict of interest.

• [14] The substantive issue in this application is whether the body corporate has failed to maintain common property or must undertake work to replace the intercom system at the scheme.

Nature of and obligations regarding the intercom system

• [15] The intercom system is a fixture installed on the common property. As such, it has been incorporated into and become part of the common property.
• [16] That contrasts with a body corporate asset.[10] The legislation defines body corporate assets as items of real or personal property acquired by the body corporate other than property that is incorporated into and becomes part of the common property.[11] The example given is of an air conditioning unit that has been acquired as a body corporate asset, but then becomes common property when it is installed as a fixture. The same would apply to the intercom equipment.
• [17] As the intercom system is a fixture incorporated into the common property, it is not presently a body corporate asset. As such, it does not need to be recorded in a register of assets.[12] But if the system was uninstalled from the common property, the equipment would become an asset.
• [18] One of a body corporate's general functions is to administer the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of all owners.[13] A body corporate must act reasonably in carrying out its functions.[14] Specifically, the body corporate must maintain common property in good condition.[15] It must similarly maintain body corporate assets in good condition.[16]
• [19] Regardless of the current need for, usage of, or any future intentions regarding the intercom system, the body corporate must maintain it in good condition for as long as it is retained. Maintaining the intercom in good condition would include ensuring it is operational.
• [20] However, the body corporate could decide not to retain the intercom. The body corporate would need to pass a resolution without dissent to sell or otherwise dispose of part of the common property.[17] But I do not consider that a resolution without dissent would be required to dispose of the intercom.
• [21] If the body corporate reasonably considered the current intercom system was no longer required, it could resolve to remove the intercom from the common property. That would constitute an improvement to common property.[18] Once removed, the intercom equipment would simply be a body corporate asset. The body corporate could then resolve to dispose of the asset. If the market value of the equipment was more than $800,[19] a special resolution would be required to dispose of it.[20] If its value was less than that, the committee could resolve to dispose of it. That approach to the disposal of fixtures has been consistently accepted.[21]

• [22] The owner of Lot 3 has provided a letter from an electrician stating they had repaired intercom system. A search of the licence number on the letter confirms the author is a licenced electrician. While making various comments about the letter and the inspection, the applicant has not established that the electrician is not licenced or qualified to repair the intercom system, that the repair did not occur, or that the system is not now operational. While the applicant may have concerns about how the inspection and repairs occurred, that seems immaterial to the question of whether the intercom is now functional.
• [23] At my request, a member of the Commissioner's staff contacted the applicant to clarify the condition of the intercom. The applicant confirmed the intercom system was currently operational. They also commented that it was not professionally installed and there was a low probability that it would be reliable. The applicant then provided a statement expressing reservations about the intercom and the events that occurred.
• [24] I acknowledge the applicant may be concerned that the intercom system could fail in future. If that occurs, the body corporate would need to take further steps to maintain it (whether by further repairs or replacement), unless it had resolved to remove it. But I cannot make the orders sought by the applicant because of the possibility that the intercom may need maintenance in future. At this stage, the applicant has not established that the intercom is not currently in good working condition such that the body corporate is breaching its maintenance responsibilities regarding the common property.
• [25] The applicant asserts there was agreement at conciliation to replace, rather than repair, the intercom. It is not evident to me that the agreement was to do anything more than put a replacement quote to owners for approval. But in any event, a conciliation agreement is a good will agreement that is not legally enforceable. If a majority of owners support the replacement of the current intercom, they can pass a general meeting resolution to do so.

• [26] The applicant wants the body corporate to pay the conciliation and adjudication application fees.
• [27] The legislation provides a low-cost dispute resolution process where parties are normally responsible for their own costs. There is no inherent authority of an adjudicator to award costs to any party,[22] and no such general authority is provided for in the legislation.
• [28] The only capacity in the legislation to award costs to an applicant arises if a respondent fails without reasonable excuse to participate in conciliation, in which case an order for the reimbursement of application fees could be made.[23]
• [29] It is evident in this case that the body corporate participated in conciliation of this dispute with the applicant and reached an agreement. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for me to require the body corporate to reimburse the application fees paid, even if that were warranted.

• [30] The applicant has not evidenced that the intercom system is not currently functional. Accordingly, the applicant not established that the body corporate is required to replace the intercom system, or undertake any other work, to meet its statutory maintenance obligations. The applicant also has not established a legal basis for the body corporate to pay the application fees. It follows that I have dismissed the application.
• [31] It is a matter for owners to decide what approach to take regarding the intercom in future. If the applicant or other owners wants the current system upgraded, they could submit motions (with appropriate quotes) to a general meeting. If any owner wants to decommission and remove the current system, they could submit appropriate motions to a general meeting. Or the intercom could remain as it currently is, in which case it must continue to be maintained in good condition. Providing the body corporate meets its statutory obligations and acts reasonably, it is not for an adjudicator to dictate to owners which course of action the body corporate should take.

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[3] Conciliation application reference 0366-2025

[10] The term 'asset' for the purposes of the body corporate legislation relates simply to an item of body corporate property and not to any current or future value or use that the item may have.

[12] Section 143 of the Small Schemes Module

[15] Section 99 of the Small Schemes Module

[16] Section 107 of the Small Schemes Module

[17] Section 103(2)(a)(i) of the Small Schemes Module

[18] Section 105 of the Small Schemes Module

[20] Section 109(c) of the Small Schemes Module

[21] See for example: Rio Villa Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for Quay West Brisbane [2019] QCATA 14

[22] See for example: Spicer v Carmody; Robinson v Carmody [1948] NSWStRp 25, Queensland Fish Board v Bunney, Ex parte Queensland Fish Board [1979] QSCFC 11