Archer Hill [2025] QBCCMCmr 267 (31 July 2025)

1. I declare that the respondent, the current owner of Lot 10, has contravened By-law 23 of the By-laws recorded for Archer Hill.
2. Subject to Order 3 below, except in the case of genuine emergencies or when in attendance or when submitting or voting on motions for general meetings, the respondent, the current owner of Lot 10:

a. must only communicate with the committee, its members, the body corporate manager, and any of the body corporate's service contractors, in writing,

b. shall send a maximum of one piece of written correspondence to the body corporate per week (which shall be addressed and sent to the committee), except where the committee has clearly invited the respondent to provide a written communication or invited an additional written communication, and

c. any one item of written communication shall be limited to a maximum of 2-pages in length, containing a maximum of 1,000 words, and clearly state the issues with supporting facts, and the outcome sought.

1. I declare that, should circumstances change, both the applicant and the respondent are at liberty to apply for a Referee's order to vary or modify part or all of Order 2 above.

• [1] This application is about the respondent's compliance with a communications by-law.
• [2] The respondent became the owner of Lot 10 in April 2022. The body corporate says that, unfortunately, there is a history of disputes between the parties. The current dispute relates to the volume and tone of email correspondence from the respondent to the body corporate. The body corporate says the respondent's correspondence is excessive and breaches the communications by-law. It seeks an order that the respondent comply with the communication by-law. It also seeks orders prescribing certain limits on the volume, form, and content of future correspondence from the respondent.
• [3] I have made the above orders for the reasons that follow.

• [4] Archer Hill Group Titles Plan 107007 (Archer Hill) is a 72-lot body corporate at Benowa. It is part of the residential precinct of Royal Pines Resort, which is an approved development under the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (IRD Act).
• [5] The applicant is The Body Corporate for Archer Hill.
• [6] The respondent is the owner of Lot 10 on BUP107008.[1]
• [7] On 18 November 2024, the committee for Archer Hill resolved to issue the respondent with a notice of contravention of the communications by-law. At the same time, the committee also resolved to authorise the making of this application if the respondent continued to contravene the by-law.

• [8] The IRD Act is one of several pieces of legislation defined as a 'specified Act' under section 326 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the BCCM Act). Section 325(2)(a) of the BCCM Act provides that the previous BUGT Act continues to apply to plans registered under the BUGT Act for a specified Act. Part 5 of the BUGT Act concerns disputes, and sections 75 to 94B provide for orders by a referee. Section 77(1) provides a general power for a referee to make orders.
• [9] I invited written submissions from the respondent and all owners.[2] The respondent made submissions and 8 other submissions were received. The body corporate was given a copy of, and responded to, the submissions. I made determinations based on the application and submitted materials.

• [10] The body corporate says it amended its by-laws in December 2022 to add By-law 23, which regulates communications. It also says and/or provides some documentary evidence that:
  1. it has been a party in two prior applications relating to disputes with the respondent[3]
  2. in the two year period from December 2022 to December 2024, the body corporate manager for the scheme was copied on 312 separate emails sent by the respondent to the committee
  3. emails from the respondent to the body corporate manager have become more prevalent since that time, for example, with 25 emails received in a 4 day period in December 2024, and 13 emails in a 12 day period in January 2025, and which numbers do not include emails sent separately to individual committee members or lot owners
  4. in contravention of the by-law, the respondent has communicated via email with the committee, its members, and the body corporate manger in an unreasonable, discourteous, and disrespectful manner by:
     1. the sheer volume of correspondence, and
     2. the content of the correspondence, which includes accusations, condescending and demanding statements, unreasonable requests, and questions the committee's integrity
  5. pursuant to the by-law, the committee resolved to impose conditions on the respondent's communications but the respondent failed to comply with those conditions
  6. it has attempted both formally and informally to resolve the dispute with the respondent, including by a letter dated September 2024 identifying that the volume of correspondence was excessive and in breach of By-law 23 and requesting that the respondent limit correspondence to one email per week with issues being described in a clear and concise manner
  7. in November 2024, the committee resolved to issue the respondent with a by-law contravention notice, which was issued on 10 December 2024
  8. on the same day, the respondent replied to the body corporate manager rejecting the notice of contravention, and
  9. based on its earlier resolution, the committee made this application.
• [11] The body corporate asserts that the respondent's communications should be objectively regarded as unreasonable and constitute a clear and consistent breach of By-law 23. The body corporate seeks the following orders:

1. That the Respondent is to comply with by-law 23 of the scheme;

2. All communications with the Body Corporate by the Respondent must be in written form;

3. A maximum of one piece of written communication may be sent by the Respondent, via Australia Post, to the Body Corporate Committee once per week, unless there is a clear invitation by the Body Corporate Committee for additional written communications; and

4. Any item of written communication must be limited to a maximum of 1,000 words and must clearly and concisely:

c. reference to any relevant legislation or by-laws.

• [12] Submissions were received from the owners of 8 lots, all in support of the application. Several of those submissions referenced other issues that were not directly relevant to this application or the orders sought.
• [13] Relevantly, the submissions included comments that:
  1. on the date the application was lodge, the committee received 22 emails from the respondent in one night
  2. threatening and calling for committee members to be dismissed is insulting and unwarranted insults and demands are upsetting
  3. the additional costs for reading and storing of the respondent's emails - which are without basis - is an unfair burden on all lot owners
  4. owners understand the committee has considered the issues raised by the respondent and has attended to the concerns that have merit but the respondent does not accept any work that does not satisfy her agenda
  5. many of the respondent's emails contain false information, including about other owners and about purported breaches of other by-laws,
  6. although work requested by the respondent has been carried out by the body corporate, the respondent makes it difficult to coordinate such works by making complaints about insufficient notice, demands about access times, details of contractors, and denying access to her lot, and
  7. several owners commend the committee, the facilities manager, and the body corporate manager for their time and contributions.
• [14] The respondent also made a lengthy submission, with more than 70 attachments. She says generally that she views the application as an effort to silence her efforts to have issues addressed by the body corporate. Those issues include:
  1. maintenance of carparks
  2. her personal safety on common property,
  3. failure to issue notices of by-law breaches,
  4. excess water usage, metering, and billing,
  5. failure to keep proper records, including minutes of meetings, and
  6. multiple instances where the body corporate has failed in its duty to maintain the common property including: overhanging trees, mould growth, delamination of balustrades, water penetration in stairwells and into carparks, leaking pipes, failure to replace damaged garage door and emergency lights that are not working, and failure since 2016 to maintain gate releases and intercom systems.
• [15] The respondent also suggests the volume of her communications are due to bullying, harassment, conflicts of interest, and an imbalance in power. Moreover, she implies her communications are necessitated by the failure of the body corporate to respond to the serious issues she raises or its incorrect responses, its own failure to adequately manage and maintain infrastructure and common property. Indeed, she estimates that 99% of the time, her emails raise issues that she has observed that require timely attention.
• [16] In addition, the respondent:
  1. describes particular issues she has with one lot owner,
  2. notes concerns about her privacy whilst in her lot,
  3. refers to by-law breaches by others, which she suggests are not acted on by the body corporate,
  4. refers to a failure by the body corporate to provide her with reports confirming it had complied with the referee's orders in Archer Hill [2024] QBCCMCmr 80,
  5. denies that the body corporate has made attempts to resolve the dispute,
  6. denies there is anything untoward about her emails and says the body corporate has not provided evidence her communications are unreasonable, accusatory, etc, and
  7. queries whether all the committee members that voted to authorise the by-law contravention notice and this application were financial at the time they voted.
• [17] In terms of the orders sought, the respondent says she manages her affairs in a digital format, does not keep papers files, and only uses printing facilities for legal documents. She says posting letters is a dying form of communication, with some countries phasing it out completely.
• [18] The respondent asks that the application be dismissed.

• [19] Acting on behalf of the body corporate, the committee provided a reply to the submissions. It says the primary ground it relies on to establish that the respondent has contravened By-law 23 is the copious amount of correspondence sent by the respondent. It says the respondent's submissions in response to the application are voluminous and serve to demonstrate the respondent's disregard for By-law 23.
• [20] The committee says further that the respondent's submissions:
  1. predominantly consist of complaints about the respondent and various individual lot owners, which issues are not relevant to the application and the orders sought,
  2. the relevant assertions in the submissions are not substantiated or elaborated in any meaningful way, and
  3. since the application was made, as of the date of the reply, the respondent has sent the body corporate a further 74 emails, including 20 in one day.
• [21] Finally, the committee says the respondent's continued breaches of the by-law place a significant burden on its administrative resources, it is clear the respondent does not intend to comply with the by-law, and the requested orders are necessary to preserve the resources of the applicant.

• [22] The issue presented in the application is whether the respondent has contravened By-law 23 and, if so, whether the requested orders are warranted.
• [23] The respondent and some submitters have raised various other issues in their submissions. Those issues are relevant only to the question of whether the respondent may have been justified in sending such a large volume of emails to the body corporate. I have considered those issues for that purpose only. The substance of the other issues raised, however, is beyond the scope of this application. If the respondent or other owners wish to pursue genuine concerns or have them addressed, they have other avenues available to do so, including where appropriate, by submitting motions for consideration by the committee or the body corporate.

• [24] A body corporate may make by-laws for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of lots and common property.[4] The by-laws are binding on the body corporate, and the owners, lessees and occupiers of a lot.[5] A body corporate must do all things reasonably necessary to enforce its by-laws.[6]
• [25] By-law 23 was added to the by-laws for Archer Hill in December 2022[7] and provides:
  1. Communications

(a) A Proprietor or an Occupier must communicate with other Proprietors or Occupiers, the Committee, individual Committee members and/or the body corporate manager engaged by the Body Corporate (the "Body Corporate Manager") in a reasonable, courteous, respectful and non-abusive manner and at all times in a manner which does not defame, bully, harass or cause a nuisance to another Proprietor, Occupier, the Committee, an individual Committee member, or the Body Corporate Manager.

(b) The Committee may impose conditions on the nature and volume of communications, including but not limited to -

(i) the method of delivery for verbal or written communications; or

(ii) the frequency of communications; or

(iii) the volume of communications.

(c) For the purpose of this by-law, communications include, but is not limited to-

(i) verbal, either in person or by telephone or other electronic means;

(ii) written communications;

(iii) electronically transmitted written communications; or

(iv) social media.

• [26] The body corporate claims the respondent is contravening By-law 23(a) by sending emails to the body corporate, in such a volume that is excessive and not reasonable, and which is causing a nuisance. It adds that the respondent is also contravening the by-law because the emails are not courteous or respectful. Pursuant to By-law 23(b), the committee resolved in October 2024 to impose conditions on the respondent's communications. Specifically, it required the respondent to contact the committee only once per 7 days. The respondent was notified of the condition by letter dated 14 October 2024. When the respondent did not comply, on 10 December 2024, the body corporate sent the respondent a notice of contravention.
• [27] The respondent does not dispute the validity of the by-law. Nor does she expressly deny that she has sent the number of emails alleged by the applicant. Rather, the respondent defends the alleged breach by suggesting that the volume of correspondence is justified because her emails all purportedly relate to the body corporate's statutory duties and its purported failures to discharge those obligations in various respects. I understand the respondent to be suggesting, at least by implication, that where (in her view) each of her emails raises valid concerns the number of emails is not unreasonable. In addition, she rejects assertions by the body corporate that the tone of her emails is untoward and says it has provided no evidence to the contrary.
• [28] I accept on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has been sending emails to the body corporate in the number and at the frequency alleged and tallied by the applicant. Having reviewed numerous examples of the emails submitted by both of the parties, I am satisfied that:
  1. some emails contain accusations about committee members and service contractors, including that the minutes fraudulently omit details and include fraudulent information,
  2. the tone of the majority of the emails is demanding, accusatory, and/or belligerent, with many of the emails containing words in ALL CAPS, and phrases such as "STILL WAITING", "NOT ACCEPTABLE", "I DEMAND", and ordering that things be done "IMMEDIATELY", and
  3. many of the emails are re-agitating issues that the committee has advised the respondent it has investigated and/or resolved.
• [29] I am satisfied that the volume of emails amounts to a nuisance within the ordinary meaning of the word and that the volume is excessive and therefore also unreasonable.
• [30] Moreover, I am also satisfied the tone of a large portion of the emails is discourteous and disrespectful. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the respondent has communicated with the body corporate repeatedly and in a way that contravenes By-law 23(a).
• [31] I am also satisfied that the body corporate acted reasonably when it decided to place a condition limiting the frequency of the respondent's communications with the body corporate to once per week. By failing to comply with that condition, I am satisfied that the respondent also breached By-law 23(b).

• [32] Turning now to the requested orders.
• [33] First requested order. The body corporate seeks an order that the respondent comply with By-law 23.
• [34] Where the respondent is already obligated to comply with the by-law, I do not consider there is any utility in making such an order. However, where I am satisfied the respondent has breached By-law 23 and was properly notified of the purported breach and given an opportunity to cease the continuing contraventions, I consider it appropriate to make an order declaring that the respondent has contravened the by-law.
• [35] Second requested order. The body corporate also seeks an order that all of the respondent's communications with the body corporate be in the written form.
• [36] I do not think it is objectively unreasonable for the body corporate to prefer that the respondent communicate with the committee in writing. I do, however, consider it to be overly restrictive to require that "all" of the respondent's communications be in writing in all circumstances. Certainly, in the case of emergencies, such as a water leak or similar, especially if occurring out of business hours, it would be unreasonable to require the respondent to communicate in writing. For this reason, I have made the requested order but with the addition, "except in the case of genuine emergencies."
• [37] Third requested order. That the respondent is only permitted to send a maximum of one piece of written communication, via Australia Post, to the committee once per week, unless there is a clear invitation by the Body Corporate Committee for additional written communications.
• [38] I consider this is a condition that is within the scope of By-law 23 for the committee to make and for me to make an order. However, where the respondent submits that she does not keep her records digitally, in these circumstances I consider it would be unduly restrictive and involve additional costs to require the respondent to send communications only by post. I have thus made the requested order but omitted that requirement.
• [39] Fourth requested order. That any one item of written communication is limited to a maximum of 1,000 words and must clearly and concisely state: the issues with facts, the outcomes sought, and reference to any relevant legislation or by-laws.
• [40] I am satisfied the limit on length of the communication is not unreasonable and is warranted and appropriate in the circumstances. As to the content and form of the communications, I consider it unreasonable to require an owner to necessarily refer to the relevant legislation or by-laws when raising a concern with the body corporate. Accordingly, I have made the order but omitted this requirement.

• [41] I have made the above orders for the reasons given herein.
• [42] To the extent the respondent has genuine issues of concern regarding the maintenance of common property, she may, of course, continue to raise those issues in a weekly (or less frequent) email to the body corporate or by proposing motions for consideration by the committee or the body corporate at a general meeting.
• [43] Finally, I note that I have not required the respondent to send communications only by post. To be clear, however, I have made an order that the respondent is limited to sending one email to the committee per week. The committee is not necessarily required to respond and, if it does not do so, the order does not permit the respondent to send a "follow up" email in the same week. To the extent the committee does respond, under the terms of the order, the respondent may reply only if invited to do so.

[1] That is a building units plan of resubdivision, which resubdivided Lot 1 on BUP107007.

[3] See Archer Hill [2024] QBCCMCmr 80 and Archer Hill [2023] QBCCMCmr 274