Albert Lodge [2025] QBCCMCmr 190 | Case summary

The Body Corporate for Albert Lodge (respondent)

all members of the body corporate committee and the body corporate manager have resigned
the body corporate is unable to obtain insurance indemnifying office bearers
the body corporate is subject to an adjudicator's order requiring it to engage a contractor within three months; and
a final order is sought appointing an administrator to resolve these issues.

Whether to appoint an administrator on an interim basis to fill a management gap.

Act, ss 101A(1), 247(3), 279(1); Standard Module, ss 7(1), chapter 3 part 5, 82(1), chapter 8 part 6.

[1] Mr McGrane of lot 8 says the entire body corporate committee at Albert Lodge resigned some two months ago on 2 April 2025 because their body corporate manager obtained insurance that did not provide office bearer indemnity, which they felt exposed them to unacceptable personal risk. The body corporate manager has since resigned with effect from today at 5:00pm.
[2] Mr McGrane is concerned that this "management gap" risks "operational and financial instability and eventually collapse" and undermines the body corporate's ability to comply with an adjudicator's order of 2 June requiring it to repair termite damage to lot 4.[1] He seeks the appointment of an administrator for three months to:

(1) arrange repairs of defects which are preventing indemnity insurance being acquired,

(2) secure appropriate Office Bearer Indemnity insurance,

(4) carry out the adjudicator's orders in relation to repairs to Lot 4, and

[3] Until his application can be decided, he seeks an interim order:

...to appoint Michael Kleinschmidt of Bugden Allen, Mooloolaba as administrator for Albert Lodge Strata Scheme by 6 June 2025 to prevent a management gap until final orders are made.

[4] I am only concerned with the interim order at this stage, which I can make if satisfied the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant it.[2] An interim order is typically only appropriate where an applicant raises serious legal questions with prospects of success at final orders. The purpose of an interim order is generally to maintain the status quo to ensure the final orders sought by the applicant are not frustrated before they can be decided.
[5] An administrator is appointed where a body corporate is too dysfunctional to run its own affairs in compliance with statutory requirements.[3] It is typically done on the least intrusive terms possible, consistent with the notion that bodies corporate should generally be self-managing.
[6] At first glance, some of the concerns raised by Mr McGrane are not indicative of an inability to comply with statutory requirements. The application includes no details or evidence of the defects that are said to be preventing the body corporate from obtaining officer bearer's indemnity insurance. There is no statutory requirement for a body corporate to insure against that risk anyway,[4] and there is arguably little need for it given section 101A(1) of the Act:

A committee member is not civilly liable for an act done or omission made in good faith and without negligence in performing the person's role as a committee member.

[7] There is also no statutory requirement for a body corporate to engage a body corporate manager, though it is common and often helpful.
[8] However, a body corporate must have a committee,[5] and without one it seems unlikely that the body corporate will manage to comply with Adjudicator Archer's order of 2 June. The order requires the body corporate to engage a contractor by 2 September, but without a committee there is no one to obtain quotations, engage or pay the contractor, or call a general meeting if necessary.[6] To that extent, the body corporate appears dysfunctional and unable to meet its obligations and an administrator may be required.
[9] It might be sufficient to have an administrator call and conduct a general meeting for the purpose of appointing a committee only though, or a body corporate manager with the powers of the committee.[7] The committee might then ensure compliance with Adjudicator Archer's order without the need for further involvement of the administrator.
[10] That is a question to resolve at final orders, as is the choice of administrator. I will not do it on an interim basis for several reasons:
1. Aside from the risk of non-compliance with Adjudicator Archer's order, Mr McGrane has not established any urgency for the interim order by identifying the likely consequences of the management gap he describes. I note the management gap has existed for two months since the resignation of the committee, as a body corporate manager generally lacks the power to make any decisions on behalf of the body corporate and can do little without a committee to provide direction.
2. Appointing an administrator on an interim basis would effectively be a final determination of the dispute. Three months could easily elapse in the ordinary course of the submissions and reply process and while the application makes its way to the front of the queue of matters awaiting adjudication. By the time a final decision was made on the merits of the application, the administrator's appointment could have run its course and the application would be moot.
3. Given the intrusive and expensive nature of administrator appointments, I am loath to make them without submissions from owners.[8] They may not accept that an administrator is required. They may wish to contest the terms of the appointment or the choice of administrator. They may wish to offer up cheaper alternatives.
4. The final orders sought by Mr McGrane will largely still be available after the submissions process. There do not seem to be any developments pending that put them under threat.
[11] At the same, I accept that the body corporate cannot wait months for a decision without breaching Adjudicator Archer's order.
[12] For these reasons, I will dismiss the application for an interim order but expedite the decision on the final order. I will allow a limited period for owners to make submissions and the applicant to lodge a reply if he wishes, then commence work on the application immediately thereafter.
[13] I suggest owners start preparing their submissions immediately given the limited time available. They should turn their minds to the dysfunction at the scheme, whether they agree that an administrator is required, what services they believe are required from an administrator, and who the administrator should be. If they wish to propose an alternative administrator, they should contact the person or organisation (typically, though not necessarily, body corporate managers or lawyers) and compile the details described at paragraph 11 of Practice Direction 17.[9]
[14] Owners could also seek quotations for the works to lot 4 without delay to improve their chances of complying with Adjudicator Archer's order. While they may not presently be able to authorise the work, they could find suitable contractors and quotes to put to the committee, a general meeting, or an administrator, saving time and potentially (if otherwise left to an administrator or body corporate manager) expense.

[1] Albert Lodge [2025] QBCCMCmr 186.

[3] Surace V Commisso [2009] CCT KA002-09 at [44].

[4] Standard Module, chapter 8, part 6.

[5] Standard Module, s 7(1).

[6] Standard Module, s 82(1).

[7] Standard Module, chapter 3, part 5.

Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020

Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

Albert Lodge [2025] QBCCMCmr 190 (6 June 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)