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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order stopping the body corporate from holding a meeting is warranted.

1. The Body Corporate for Augusta Terraces CTS 15130 must not take any steps to implement Motion 2, Motion 3.1, Motion 3.2, Motion 4.1, Motion 4.2 or Motion 5 of the extraordinary general meeting called to be held on 6 February 2026, should any of those motions be passed by the body corporate at the meeting, or any meeting held due to adjournment of this meeting under section 100 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020.
2. This interim order has effect until 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended, whichever comes first.

[1] This is an interim application brought by an owner against the body corporate.

[2] The applicant seeks an order that would "stop" the extraordinary general meeting that is to be held. As the meeting is imminent, I have not sought comment from the body corporate.

[3] The motions proposed at this meeting relate to:

1. Engaging contractors to undertake "tile replacement and remediation works" to balconies within the scheme.
2. That the body corporate either enters into a loan agreement to pay for these works, or strikes a special contribution.
3. There is also a motion regarding a special contribution for an admin fund deficit.

[4] I have not made an order that the meeting cannot go ahead, as that would be final in nature. This is an interim application which means I am not finally determining the dispute. It is also entirely possible that the motions proposed at the meeting may fail and the dispute may resolve itself.

[5] I have made an interim order that the body corporate must not act on a majority of the motions, if they resolve to pass. I have made this order because, on my preliminary review:

1. I am currently satisfied there is a serious legal question about whether the owners have been provided with adequate notice, or whether the body corporate could act reasonably in its decision making, where:
   1. There appears to be little information about why the body corporate is responsible for works on the balconies that form part of the lots, and why the matter is so urgent.
   2. Owners have been given less than 21 days' notice, as required. There is a motion about owners "waiving" this requirement - but the validity of this approach is questionable.
   3. The explanatory schedule does not include the required information for group of same issue motions.
2. I am currently satisfied the balance of convenience favours intervention, as should the motions be acted upon, the body corporate may then be bound to contacts with third parties for considerable amounts that may not be easily undone. In relation to proposed special contributions, owners may face penalty interest, recovery costs or loss of voting rights.

[6] Importantly, this interim order does not stop the body corporate from calling another meeting with adequate notice that addresses these concerns.

[7] The application includes arguments about access to the body corporate roll (a document that contains owner contact information) being refused. The legislation provides for owners to be given copies of such documents where the request is in writing and the fee paid. However, I am not currently satisfied that this argument has much bearing on the potential defects with the general meeting. If the applicant believes they should be provided with a copy of the roll, it is open to them to make an application directly related to this.

[8] The community management statement shows the Standard Module applies to this scheme.

[9] The scheme is a building format plan subdivision (BFP) of 56 lots and common property. The lots are located within four three-storey brick buildings. The survey plans for the scheme show the balconies as forming part of the lots, and not common property.

[10] It appears the body corporate has elected a committee, and has engaged a body corporate manager, Redlands Body Corporate Management & Consultants (BCM), to assist it.

[11] The body corporate, via the BCM, issued a notice of extraordinary general meeting on 21 January 2026. The meeting is called to be held today, 6 February 2026 (EGM).

[12] The titles of the motions on the agenda include:

1. Confirmation of previous minutes

2. Waiving statutory notice of meeting

3.1. Apointment [sic] of contractor - WS Remedial Group

3.2. Apointment [sic] of contractor - Deluke Group Pty Ltd

4.1. Strata loan

4.2. Special sinking fund levy

5. Special administrative fund levy to recover deficit

[13] The applicant seeks final orders that the EGM be voided. In the interim, the applicant wants the EGM to be stopped until final orders are made.

Inadequate information has been provided that makes it impossible to make an informed decision.

[15] The applicant also says that they want to be able to discuss the proposed maintenance and payments with other owners, but has wrongly not been provided with the body corporate roll.

[16] Due to the meeting being held imminently, I have not sought submissions from the body corporate.

[17] Interim orders are temporary measures put in place to maintain the status quo until a final decision can be made. The main purpose is to preserve a party's rights or interest, usually by preventing a party from taking certain actions.

[18] The ability for an adjudicator to issue an interim order is provided for in the legislation. An adjudicator can make such an order where satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the order is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1] Adjudicators often follow the test applied by courts in interlocutory applications. The test requires the adjudicator to be satisfied of two key points:

1. there is a prima facie case to justify relief, and
2. the balance of convenience justifies the interim relief. [2]

[19] While I am not determining the final orders sought, determining whether there is a genuine legal issue at the interim stage requires some consideration of them.

[20] It is the applicant's responsibility to show there is a prima facie case to justify the relief they seek. This does not mean the applicant needs to prove that they are more likely than not to succeed in obtaining final orders. Instead, this means they must show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the interim orders pending a final determination of the matter.[3] How strong the possibility of success that is needed depends upon the nature of the rights the applicant asserts, and the consequences of the order sought.[4]

[21] The applicant states that owners have not had adequate information to be able to make an informed decision. Ensuring owners have enough information can be important for several reasons.

[22] First, the committee has a fiduciary duty to provide material that is substantially full and true in relation to a vote at a general meeting.[5] This means the committee should give owners proper notice of the subject which it proposes to be done.[6] Although, it is also possible for owners to have sufficient background knowledge of the situation to make an informed decision, and there can be no criticism of the committee if that is the case.[7]

[23] Second, the body corporate must act reasonably.[8] A legally reasonable decision making process requires the decision maker to consider all relevant matters and disregard irrelevant ones.[9]

[24] It is difficult to say that the body corporate can make a reasonable decision, where the reasons why the proposed scope of work to the balconies (that form part of the lots) is needed and is the body corporate's responsibility, and why the works have been deemed so urgent that it could not wait another 7 days for the meeting, appears to have not been communicated to the voters.

[25] While not raised in the application, I note that there appears to be four motions that may be treated as two group of same issue motions. Where there are 2 or more motions that propose different ways of dealing with the same issue, they must be listed on the voting paper as a group of same issue motions.[10] The legislation also states that the explanatory schedule must include particular information.[11] It does not appear that the explanatory schedule complies. This adds to my concerns about inadequate notice and information being given to owners.

[26] The applicant also argues that owners have not had adequate time to make an informed decision.

[27] A general meeting must be held at least 21 days after the notice of the meeting is given to the owners.[12]

[28] There may be circumstances where waiting 21 days could be catastrophic. In genuine emergencies, it is open to the body corporate to seek an emergency order of an adjudicator to proceed with the works without a general meeting.[13] It does not appear the body corporate has made such an application.

[29] I have already explained that there is little in the meeting materials explaining why the general meeting could not be held after 21 days' notice.

[30] The applicant says they have attempted to become informed, by requesting contact details of other owners to discuss the situation.

[31] The body corporate keeps a record of owners and their contact details (amongst other things), referred to as the roll.[14] Owners generally have a legislative right to access a copy of the roll, so long as they make a request in writing and pay the relevant fee.[15]

[32] The application provides a partial copy of an email, where a request and offer to pay the fee is made. Although, the recipient and date of the email is not visible, and the name at the bottom of the email does not match the applicant. It is not entirely clear whether the applicant has made a proper request.

[33] There are also partial copies of emails from an employee of the BCM that, perplexingly, seem to communicate the belief that the legislation does not allow the body corporate to disclose owner contact details to a non-committee member. Although, the full context of the request and emails are not provided in the application, so it is not possible to know the context in which these comments were made - there are some circumstances where body corporate records do not need to be provided.

[34] Nevertheless, on my preliminary review, I do not currently find whether the applicant has access to the roll particularly relevant to the final orders. Even if the roll was provided, it is unlikely to remedy a lack of information and time to consider the proposals at the meeting.

[35] If the applicant believes they have made an adequate request and are entitled to the documents pursuant to section 205 of the Act, it is open to them to make another application for final orders directly relating to production of the document.

[36] I am currently satisfied that there is a prima facie case to void the motions dealing with the works, loans and special contributions. This is because it currently appears that the owners may not have been not provided with sufficient information to make an informed or reasonable decision, and the required timeframe under the legislation was not met.

[37] Though, before granting an interim order, I must balance the inconvenience to the respondent body corporate if I were to grant the interim relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be refused, against the inconvenience to the applicant if I were to not grant relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be granted.[16]

[38] If the body corporate passes and acts on the motions for remedial works or a loan agreement, the body corporate could be bound to contracts with third parties for significant amounts and the final orders sought would be of little relevance. If the body corporate acts on the special contribution motions, owners may unfairly face penalty interest, recovery costs and lose the ability to vote or be elected to committee.[17]

[39] On the other hand, interim relief precluding the body corporate from acting on the motions would not stop it from calling another meeting with more appropriate timeframes and information. There is no information currently in front of me to suggest the body corporate will suffer imminent harm. If this is the case, the body corporate can request I vary the interim relief.

[40] I am therefore satisfied the balance of convenience justifies interim relief.

[41] I have been satisfied that, while an interim order stopping the meeting in its entirety is not appropriate for interim relief, I am currently satisfied an order stopping the body corporate from acting on any passed motions about the works, loan or special contributions is justified. I have not come to this conclusion because of any dispute about the body corporate roll being provided - that is a separate and distinct matter. I have come to this conclusion based on the applicant's concerns about a lack of time and information being provided in the meeting materials.

[42] Notably, this is only a preliminary view, made quickly and based on the materials currently in front of me. The body corporate has not had opportunity to make any submissions.

[43] For the avoidance of any doubt, the interim orders do not stop the body corporate from calling another meeting that better informs owners and provides adequate time.

[2] SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 at [21].

[3] Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [622-623].

[4] Australian Broadcasting Corp v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, at [65], [19].

[5] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [56].

[6] Ryan v Edna May Junction Gold Mining Company [1916] HCA 37; (1916) 21 CLR 487.

[7] See Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland and Anor [2021] QCATA 119 at [44]; Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [26].

[8] Act, s 94(2).

[9] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [42].

[10] Standard Module, s 89.

[11] See Standard Module, s 90.

[12] Standard Module, s 91.

[14] See Standard Module, s 224.

[15] Act, s 205.

[16] Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] citing Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [5].

[17] Standard Module, ss 10, 17, 64, 102, 116.