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

Body Corporate and Community Management (Commercial Module) Regulation 2020 (Commercial Module)

BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is breaching a by-law by storing items on common property.

Act, ss 182-188

[1] This application is about items alleged to be stored on common property by the respondent, the owner of Lot 16. The body corporate says this conduct breaches By-law 7. It says the conduct raises potential workplace health and safety risks to occupiers and visitors, as well as an increased fire hazard. It wrote to the respondent in May 2025 and gave it by-law contravention notices in July. But it says the items have not been removed. The application seeks an order for the removal of the items.

[2] Airport Business Centre Archerfield community titles scheme 34848 (ABCA) is a scheme in Acacia Ridge comprising 34-lots and common property. The community management statement (CMS) records that the Commercial Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 176525, 176526 and 176527.

[3] The application seeks an order "...for Lot 16 for the removal of all miscellaneous items on common property".

[4] 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]

[5] In July 2025 the committee resolved to bring a dispute resolution application against the respondent if they failed to comply with the by-law contravention notice.

[6] The body corporate initially applied for conciliation in August.[3] A conciliation session was scheduled but was ended in September on the basis that the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate.

[7] This application was lodged on 24 September 2025.

[8] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[4] No submissions were received.

[9] The respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the notice of the application, despite requests to do so. A member of the Commissioner's office contacted the respondent's representative who asked for the notice to be resent. That occurred, and the respondent was advised that they could seek an extension of time to make a submission if required. However, nothing further was received from the respondent.

[10] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material and seeking further information from the body corporate.[6] The queries and responses were provided to the respondent.

[11] Although the respondent did not make a submission, I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made to put the respondent on notice of the application and to provide them with an opportunity to respond to it.

[12] The question raised by this application is whether the respondent is keeping items on common property in breach of By-law 7, such that it must remove the items. I will note the requirements of the relevant by-law and the submitted evidence of a breach.

[13] All owners and occupiers are bound by the CMS, including the by-laws in the CMS.[7] The Act imposes a duty on the body corporate to enforce the CMS, including the by-laws.[8] It must act reasonably in doing so.[9] The legislation sets out the process for a body corporate to enforcing the by-laws, including issuing a by-law contravention notice to a person allegedly breaching the by-laws.[10]

[14] By-law 7 in the current CMS for ACBC provides as follows:[11]

1. Leaving of rubbish etc on the Common Property

7.1 An occupier of a lot must not leave rubbish or other materials on the common property in a way or place likely to interfere with the enjoyment of the common property by someone else.

1. the conduct of an occupier
2. leaving rubbish or other materials
3. on common property
4. in a way likely to interfere with the enjoyment of the common property by others.

[16] All those elements must be satisfied to establish the respondent has breached By-law 7.

[17] Although By-law 7 refers only to the conduct of an occupier, the application was brought against the respondent in its capacity as an owner. As some correspondence included in the application was directed to a different entity at the address for Lot 16, I sought clarification from the body corporate as to whether the respondent is an occupier of Lot 16 and whether it is the respondent (rather than any other individual or entity) that was responsible for the items on common property.

[18] The body corporate says the registered address for the respondent on the body corporate roll is the address of the lot and that the respondent is the entity responsible for the items on common property. In failing to make a submission, the respondent has not disputed this.

[19] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to accept that the respondent is an occupier of Lot 7 and is the entity responsible for the disputed conduct.

[20] The application refers generally to 'miscellaneous items' being stored on common property. The application did not describe the items and a range of different items are evident in the only photograph in the application, which was included in a letter in May 2025.

[21] I sought clarification from the body corporate as to the nature of the items it asserted have been or are being left on common property. It confirmed it is only objecting to concrete blocks. It says these have been stored for over 10 months, and the conduct is continuing.

[22] There is nothing in the submitted material to suggest that the concrete blocks are 'rubbish', but they would seem to constitute 'other materials'.

[23] The applicant provided further photographs which show a stack of large concrete blocks. Again, while various other items are evident in the photographs, the body corporate says it is not objecting to anything else.

[24] The application said the concrete blocks are on common property but did not explain this further. I sought clarification of the location of the disputed items.

[25] The body corporate then said the blocks were originally stored for an extended period on an area of common property that it indicated on an attached plan as C23. It says the blocks were there when the application was lodged but have since been relocated to an area indicated to be C65.

[26] Under By-law 15, owners are given exclusive use of designated areas of common property 'for the purpose of car parking', which they must keep in a clean and tidy condition. Under schedule E of the CMS, the respondent is allocated areas C65 and C66 on the attached sketch plan A. It does not appear that area C23 is allocated for the exclusive use of any lot.

[27] The body corporate acknowledges the concrete blocks are now being stored on an exclusive use area allocated to the respondent's Lot 16. However, it says the area is designated solely for car parking and not for the storage.

[28] It is evident from the submitted evidence that the concrete blocks are on common property. However, it is apparent that they are now only in the respondent's exclusive use area.

[29] I do not agree that the respondent's exclusive use car spaces can only used for car parking and not storage. The words of By-law 15 refer to the purpose of car parking but do not appear to expressly limit the use of the common property to only that purpose. For example, the by-law does not say 'only for the purpose of car parking'.

[30] It is common both in residential and commercial contexts for owners and occupiers to store things in their car space. In a previous dispute (also about items stored on exclusive use car spaces in a commercial scheme) I considered the use of exclusive use areas designated for the purpose of car parking.[12] I noted decisions which accepted an exclusive use area allocated for car parking could not be used for any other purpose if the by-law specifically stated the area was only for that purpose. But where there was no such express limitation, I was not satisfied the identified purpose of the exclusive use area operated to limit the use only to that purpose. An adjudicator has recently agreed that exclusive use rights given to an occupier are not restricted unless the by-law expressly limits that right.[13]

[31] Moreover, the body corporate has not alleged that the respondent has contravened By-law 15 (or any other by-law other than By-law 7) or pursued the preliminary procedures in the legislation for a dispute about the alleged breach of that by-law.

[32] The final element of By-law 7 is whether the items (the concrete blocks) have been left on common property in a way or place likely to interfere with the enjoyment of the common property by someone else. I sought clarification from the body corporate of how the items interfere with the use of common property.

[33] The body corporate responded that the conduct 'significantly detracts' from the appearance and amenity of the scheme. It says stored items create an unsightly environment, inconsistent with the professional and orderly presentation expected in the commercial complex. It says the visual clutter diminishes the aesthetic appeal of the property and negatively affects the experience of others. It further says this could adversely affect the perceived value of the scheme, which could impact each owner's investment.

[34] The body corporate says it is only objecting to the concrete blocks, and its photographs show those blocks in a neat stack well within the boundaries of a car space. It is not apparent from the submitted material how this stack detracts from the appearance of a scheme where lots are apparently used for commercial or light industrial purposes. No evidence is provided of any direct interference with any person's enjoyment of the common property from the appearance of blocks. No evidence is provided of any adverse impact on property values.

[35] The body corporate also indicated that the storage of miscellaneous items poses a potential workplace health and safety risk and an increased fire hazard. I again sought clarification of the basis for those assertions, including any evidence to such as a workplace heath and safety risk assessment or a fire safety assessment.

[36] The body corporate responded that, according to Safe Work Australia, slips, trips and falls often result from obstacles in walkways or cluttered areas. It further says miscellaneous items on common property add to the fire load which can accelerate fire spread. It says it has a duty to eliminate or minimise risk and removing these items ensures compliance with its obligations and demonstrates its proactive approach to risk management. The body corporate did not provide any safety or risk assessments.

[37] When the concrete blocks are on an area allocated for the exclusive use of Lot 16, no other person on common property has a right to use that area. The car space is not a walkway. Moreover, the photographs supplied show the concrete blocks stacked next to a large yellow rail and with orange bollards or a witch's hat next to them. It is difficult to see why they would be a trip hazard or why they would impede other occupiers or visitors at the scheme any more than a vehicle parked in the car space. It is similarly difficult to see how a stack of non-combustible concrete blocks could increase the fire load or be a fire hazard.

[38] The body corporate has not otherwise provided evidence that any person lawfully using scheme land has been adversely impacted by the existence of the concrete blocks.

[39] Items left or stored on areas of common property not allocated for the respondent's exclusive may interfere with the ability of other owners or occupiers to use and enjoy that part of common property. But the body corporate has not indicated that it is currently concerned about other items or items in other areas.

[40] On the submitted material, the body corporate has not established that the respondent has contravened By-law 7 by storing concrete blocks on common property in their exclusive use car space. It follows that I have dismissed the application.

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

[11] Recorded 15 June 2006, Titles dealing number 709683294

[12] Westside Business Estate [2016] QBCCMCmr 579, paras 52 to 62

[13] Casino Towers [2025] QBCCMCmr 181, para 25