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

ANIMAL BY-LAW - where approval for the respondent's dog has been rescinded - whether the respondent must remove the dog.

1. If the respondent Amy Stafford is still keeping a dog in Lot 20, the dog must be removed from scheme land within 7 days of the date of this order and must not be brought back unless the Body Corporate for Azure on Double Bay passes a resolution under By-law 13 after the date of this order giving new approval for the dog.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about a dog that has been kept by the respondent on Lot 20.
• [2] In November 2023 the committee resolved to give the respondent approval to keep a then 9-year-old Boxer named Maggie, subject to several conditions including about noise. The approval was communicated to the respondent by letter in December 2023.
• [3] But the body corporate says that for over 12 months the dog barked excessively, causing a persistent nuisance in breach of the by-laws, and that the respondent failed to manage the dog's behaviour. It provides complaints from other residents. It says breach notices, conciliation, and intervention attempts have not resolved the issue.
• [4] After this application was lodged, on 29 July 2025, the committee resolved to rescind the 2023 approval and notified the respondent of that in writing on 5 August. But it is unsure if the dog has been removed. It seeks an order to rescind the approval and for the dog to be removed.

• [5] Azure on Double Bay community titles scheme 35336 (Azure on Double Bay) is a 66-lot scheme at Kawana Island. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 203446.
• [6] The application seeks an order: 'That the consent letter dated 4 December 2023, granting approval to keep a dog in Lot 20, be rescinded, and that the dog be removed from the property.'

• [7] 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]

• [8] The body corporate originally applied for conciliation of the dispute in August 2024.[3] The parties reached a conciliated agreement, but it seems that did not resolve the dispute.
• [9] This application was lodged on 4 July 2025, pursuant to a resolution passed outside a committee meeting on 3 July. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[4] The application was subsequently amended.[5]
• [10] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[6] No submissions were received. The respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the notice of the application, which was emailed twice and posted, and did not return a telephone call.
• [11] The application was referred to department adjudication.[7] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[8]
• [12] At my request, a member of the Commissioner's office asked the body corporate whether the dog was still at the scheme. The body corporate manager advised the committee could not confirm that and it did not receive a reply from the respondent when it asked. It provided a further by-law contravention notice issued on 15 September asserting the dog was on the lot, and creating noise that was interfering with others. It sought to continue the application.
• [13] The officer then attempted again to contact the respondent. This time the respondent verbally advised the dog had been rehomed in September and they did not understand what else there was to be done. However, they said they did not want to make a submission.

• [14] By-law 13 in the CMS for Azure on Double Bay provides for the keeping of animals at the scheme.[9] It says (By-law 13.1) that an occupier must obtain written approval for the committee before bringing, keeping, or permitting an invitee to keep any animal on the common property. It sets out the process for an application for approval and general conditions of approval. It specifies (By-law 13.7) that if the committee withdraws an approval, the occupier must remove the animal from the scheme within 7 days of receiving notice from the committee.
• [15] The respondent had approval to keep a dog in Lot 20. That approval has been expressly rescinded. The respondent has not challenged the decision to rescind approval. Given the apparent circumstances, it is difficult to see why that decision would not be valid. As the approval has been rescinded, the respondent is breaching By-law 20 if they continue to keep the dog at the scheme.
• [16] It is not necessary to consider any past or current evidence of the dog's behaviour because, regardless of that, the dog is no longer approved to be kept at the scheme.
• [17] It may be this dispute has now been resolved because the dog has left the lot. The respondent indicates that is the case but has not said so in writing. If the dog was still in the lot, it is unclear why the committee would not be aware of that given the assertions of ongoing barking. However, given the past circumstances including the limited communication from the respondent, I acknowledge there may be some uncertainty for the body corporate. To avoid any doubt for the parties, I will make an order.
• [18] I do not consider it necessary to make an order to rescind the consent letter from December 2023 because the body corporate has already resolved to rescind the approval. However, if the dog remains at Lot 20, I will order the respondent to remove it and keep it removed unless the body corporate passes a new resolution granting approval for the dog to be kept in Lot 20.
• [19] If the dog has been removed from the scheme, this order should present no difficulty for the applicant. But if not, the respondent should be aware that it is an offence not to comply with an order, and the order can be enforced in the Magistrates Court if it is breached.[10]

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

[3] Conciliation application reference 0697-2024

[9] Titles dealing number 722758148, recorded 19 September 2023

[10] See www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/disputes/dispute-services/enforce-orders