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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about maintenance at the scheme, including motions at an annual general meeting (AGM) scheduled for 21 August 2025.
• [2] The applicant says the body corporate has failed to meet its statutory maintenance responsibilities. He says it has not carried out rectification works to common property identified in engineering reports obtained in 2014, 2018 and 2020 and by its insurer. The applicant says the body corporate's decision-making has not been reasonable, because it is making decisions without having all information, and it is disregarding his and its insurer's concerns. A particular concern relates to trees at the scheme. The applicant says the body corporate has not obtained reports on the trees and the engineers say big trees should probably be removed. He says the body corporate does not have sufficient information to make an informed choice.
• [3] The applicant seeks to invalidate AGM motions which propose painting and tree trimming works. He also seeks orders for reports to be obtained, an action plan for maintenance, a meeting to approve maintenance works, and about communication. He seeks various interim orders. At this time, I will only consider whether interim orders are warranted.

• [4] Bauhinia Grove community titles scheme 9154 (Bauhinia Grove) is a 6-lot scheme in New Farm. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 6061.
• [5] This application seeks the following interim orders:

1. That the 2025 AGM motions 16A and 16B for painting will require a special levy and will expose owners to higher insurance premiums . Because not fixing the identified maintenance will incur increased insurance costs. Not painting will not incur an increase in premiums. The painting motions are not logically defensible and should be removed from the AGM.
2. That the 2025 AGM motions 19A and 19B for tree trimming are not objectively reasonable and should be removed from the AGM. When the new engineers report is completed it will identify the same issues, cracked brickwork to be filled and trees too close and should be removed or root barriers installed as per BTF 18. See 8a engineer report references on large trees.
3. That the body corporate ensures that a plumbers report is prepared for the engineer within 10 days of the AGM. There is a cheaper quote from a reputable plumbing company if the regular plumber is unable to attend. The plumber has not attended approved works in the past or been delayed as communication is with the secretary and not the HBCM manager even when issued work orders. See 7.0 self resolution and 6.1 insurance emails.
4. That the secretary, committee members, appointed site representatives and committee decisions are void unless communicated to all committee members prior to action being taken. The site contact arranged the engineer inspection without informing me, even though the insurer checked that my unit was to be inspected, the draft minutes stated that the plumber would attend before the engineers and HBCM manager was going to organise with the engineer so that I could attend. See 6.1 8b and 8.4, 8.6 and 8.7 emails.

• [6] The application then seeks the following final orders:
  1. The body corporate implements solutions and an action plan for the identified outstanding maintenance issues in the existing engineer reports and identified by the insurer review of the reports and any new maintenance issues, so that there are completed works and action plan by the insurance review date 27.11.25. When the new engineers report is completed it will identify the same issues, cracked brickwork to be filled and trees too close and trees should be removed or root barriers installed as the previous 3 engineer reports.
  2. That the 2025 AGM motions (16a,16b) for painting the building and (19a, 19b) tree trimming are void.
  3. That an EGM be held to approve motions to repair the basic identified maintenance, Cracked brickwork flexible filled and trees removed as per BTF 18.
  4. That the new engineers report and the plumbing report are completed to enable quotes to be organised for an EGM prior to the insurance renewal period.
  5. To remove any potential roadblocks, uninformed decisions and to ensure transparent communication the body corporate site contact, committee members, secretary and committee decisions are communicated to all committee members so that an action plan can be expeditiously developed, repairs undertaken and receipts sent to the insurer. The insurer was sent a receipt for concrete repairs when the insurer asked for evidence of cracked brickwork repair and I was not aware as it was determined to be a majority committee decision. The insurer noted they were carrying an unidentified risk as they had not been informed of the outstanding maintenance. The site contact organised the engineer to come without informing me thereby attempting to limit the information that the engineer could access. See 6.1 and emails 8.4, 8.6 and 8.7

• [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] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[3]

• [8] The applicant lodged a conciliation application in January 2025 regarding maintenance issues.[4] The parties participated in conciliation in March and reached an agreement.
• [9] This application was lodged on 11 August 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification on some aspects of the application,[5] which was then amended.[6]
• [10] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[7] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [11] Given the circumstances, including the limited time available prior to the AGM, I did not consider it necessary to seek comment from the body corporate at this stage.

• [12] I will note some relevant circumstances as indicated in the submitted material.
• [13] In October 2014 the body corporate obtained an inspection report from Booth Engineers & Associates Pty Ltd (Booth) regarding possible footing system movement at the building. While the movement was stated to be within acceptable limits, the report concluded movement was occurring and continuing. It recommended further monitoring.
• [14] The report said the movement was related to moisture changes in the clay, trees, poor drainage, and plumbing leaks. It said if poor site features were not addressed and if extreme weather continued, the movement would continue. It opined that movement may be reduced with building maintenance in accordance with a CSIRO publication 'Foundation maintenance and footing performance' (CSIRO BTF 18).
• [15] Booth noted (amongst other observations) that 'Some trees were noted growing within their mature height to the building' and they 'should be removed if possible or root/moisture barriers considered in future as required'. CSIRO BTF 18 was referenced in that regard. The report also recommended exterior maintenance in accordance with CSIRO BTF 18. However, it is not apparent that the report explicitly recommended the removal of specific or general vegetation.
• [16] Booth inspected a retaining wall at the scheme in May 2018. It concluded the wall was rotating and indicated 3 possible influencing factors. One was possible additional loads on the wall due to nearby trees. It said the moderate rotation should be monitored.
• [17] This report made the same comments about trees and shrubs and again referred to BTF 18, along with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission's 'A guide to preventing structural damage' (QBCC guide). Booth again made a general recommendation about exterior maintenance being undertaken in accordance with those documents.
• [18] East Coast Engineering and Construction (East Coast) provided a site inspection report in October 2020 in regard to cracking. The report observed cracks in many locations around the building's exterior and interior, but concluded the cracking did not impact the structural integrity of the building. It said it did not recommend foundation stabilization works. It recommended the cracks be filled and monitored for 12 months, with reassessment if they developed.
• [19] East Coast noted the growth of large trees at the rear of the block and that large trees close to building footings can cause foundation movement. However, I cannot identify that the report attributed any cracking to the trees or made recommendations about the trees. Appendices to the report provide general information on foundation performance, maintenance and movements, and include CSIRO BTF 18.
• [20] The minutes of an AGM in August 2024 indicate that the applicant queried whether the 2018 and 2020 engineering reports had been raised with the insurer. They also indicate the agreement of those present to obtain a quote from an engineer to further investigate the building movement and a sunken driveway. The AGM did not pass a committee motion proposing tree trimming, but resolved to obtain an updated quote to paint the building in 2025, as had apparently been discussed at the 2023 AGM. Other motions about maintenance and safety issues were passed at the meeting. A committee including the applicant was elected.
• [21] The applicant applied for conciliation seeking plumbing and arborist investigations in January 2025. The conciliation agreement included that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) would be held to consider motions from the applicant for investigations by an arborist and plumber and then an engineer's report.
• [22] The body corporate had an EGM on 22 May 2025. A motion to engage an arborist failed to pass. However, motions to engage a plumber and to obtain an engineering report following the plumbing and arborist investigations were passed. A committee was elected at the EGM, again including the applicant.
• [23] It appears the applicant raised concerns about maintenance with the body corporate's insurers, and the insurer sought information from the body corporate, including reports obtained. The application includes some emails on the matter in June and July 2025.[8]
• [24] At a committee meeting on 3 July 2025 the committee (including the applicant) reviewed various quotes (including for repainting and tree trimming) and unanimously resolved to put them to the 2025 AGM. The committee further agreed to the AGM motions and resolved to accept quotes for an engineer and a plumber, and nominated a site contact. The committee meeting also discussed a response to questions from the insurer.
• [25] An AGM has been scheduled for 21 August 2025. AGM Motions 16A and 16B propose repainting the building pursuant to attached quotes, to be funded by a special levy and the sinking fund. AGM Motions 19A and 19B propose undertaking tree trimming paid for by the sinking fund. Several other AGM motions also propose maintenance works.
• [26] The applicant says he submitted motions for arborist reports and plumbing investigations, raised the non-reporting of building damage and lack of maintenance to the insurer, and instigated conciliation. However, he does not evidence that he has raised his objections to the AGM motions with the body corporate, or has explicitly sought the other outcomes now sought. It also appears he voted in favour of the motions he now opposes being put to the AGM.

• [27] The only issue at this time is whether interim orders are warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [28] The purpose of an interim order is generally to grant temporary relief or preserve the status quo until the substantive issues in dispute can be resolved. It is not a means of expediting the final determination of a substantive issue.
• [29] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[9] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[10] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. An adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [30] An adjudicator cannot make an order requiring action to be taken or ceased simply because that may seem a reasonable or logical course of action or is the preferred course of action for an applicant. Rather, an applicant must identify a specific legal issue, such as a failure to comply with the legislation that the applicant has been unable to resolve directly, and establish that the particular order sought is necessary to remedy that contravention.
• [31] I have found the grounds to this application, and the supporting documentation supplied, to be repetitive and quite confusing. Although it is evident the applicant is concerned about the proper maintenance of the scheme, particularly regarding trees, the specifics of his concerns and the basis for particular orders sought are unclear.
• [32] In considering the application at this preliminary stage, I will first note the body corporate's maintenance obligations and its requirement to act reasonably. I will then consider the applicant's concerns as best as I can ascertain from the submitted material.

• [33] The Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control the common property for the benefit of owners and comply with the regulations about common property.[11] The body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[12] Owners in turn must maintain their lots in good condition.[13]
• [34] The statutory duty to maintain is one of strict liability. Maintenance must be undertaken as soon as the building or part of it falls into disrepair or is not operating properly.[14] A body corporate cannot avoid or defer work that is necessary to ensure the scheme is in good condition because it has not budgeted for the work, has insufficient funds, does not wish to incur expenditure, or has other priorities.
• [35] I would make the observation that the applicant appears to direct his concerns towards other committee members. But all owners and all committee members share the responsibility for ensuring the body corporate meets its statutory responsibilities. If there is disagreement between committee members about what course of action to pursue, any owner can submit relevant motions for consideration and challenge the outcome if the motions are not passed.

• [36] A body corporate must act reasonably in regard to its functions, including in making or not making a decision.[15] Similarly, a committee must act reasonably in making a decision.[16]
• [37] There is considerable case law about the body corporate's responsibility to act reasonably. Reasonable decision-making '...involves an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue...' and '...requires that all relevant matters are taken into consideration and irrelevant ones are left out.'[17] I further note the view that a '...legally reasonable decision is not a uniquely right one. It involves matters of degree about which contrary - even opposite - conclusions can be reasonably reached on the same body of evidence by different lines of reasoning or by reference to other determinants without either being demonstrably right or manifestly wrong.'[18]
• [38] The person challenging a decision or action has the onus of establishing it was unreasonable.
• [39] It is not for an adjudicator to supplant the body corporate's decision-making role or impose their own views on the body corporate. A decision will only be set aside if an adjudicator is satisfied it was so unreasonable that no reasonable body corporate could have come to it, or it is 'conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust'.[19]

Repainting motions (interim order 1, final order 2)

• [40] AGM Motions 16A and 16B propose to engage Compaint for $45,051.49 or Rochele Painting for $35,514,70 for repainting works. The works include painting of previously painted external surfaces and internal stairwells, along with additional external elements.
• [41] The applicant says the motions are not logically defensible. He seeks an interim order that the motions be removed and a final order that the motions are void.
• [42] The applicant appears to argue that raising a special levy for painting ignores maintenance issues. He says the painting motions will expose owners to higher insurance premiums because not fixing other maintenance will increase insurance costs. He says the committee has not addressed the maintenance issues identified by the insurer or discussed an action plan. He says there is no evidence the engineers' recommendations have been implemented. He says the committee has not discussed how to mitigate the risk of increased premiums. He appears to say painting is not logical because the paintwork is only faded and outdated.
• [43] I am unable to identify from the application grounds that the applicant opposes repainting the building per se. Rather it appears he considers the painting to be unnecessary or not a priority. It seems his concern is that the body corporate is proposing to spend funds on painting rather on other maintenance work, and that insurance premiums may rise if the other necessary repairs are not undertaken. It is not evident that repainting itself will affect the body corporate's insurance premium. There also appears to be no suggestion that the painting work will affect the works the applicant wants done or become unnecessary because of it.
• [44] My preliminary view is that the applicant's position (if I have correctly identified it) is unfounded. I am unclear if painting has been proposed because it is seen as desirable by others, or because the current paintwork is not in good condition such that repainting is necessary maintenance. But either way, I cannot see why it is inherently unreasonable or unlawful for the body corporate to decide to repaint the building just because other work may be required. The two are not mutually exclusive. If maintenance is required, that must be undertaken regardless of whether the body corporate also decides to expend funds on other work.
• [45] At this stage, I am not satisfied the applicant has raised a genuine legal issue about the validity of AGM Motions 16A and 16B.

Tree trimming motions (interim order 2, final order 2)

• [46] AGM Motions 19A and 19B propose engaging Brisbane Treeworx for $8,140 or Brisbane Tree Experts for $8,845. Although described as 'tree trimming' on the AGM agenda, the quotes indicate that the proposed work includes removing some trees, significantly pruning others, and removing lower branches on some trees.
• [47] The applicant says the motions are not objectively reasonable. He seeks an interim order that the motions be removed and a final order that the motions are void.
• [48] The applicant says it is not reasonable to spend funds on the tree maintenance because the work does not meet the requirements of CSIRO BTF 18 and the engineers' reports and does not resolve uncertainty of the causation of building damage. He says the trees are too close to the building. He says the arborists quoted on the health of the trees and what they saw as appropriate, but were not informed of the engineers' reports and did not identify root ball or invasive roots possibly damaging the structural integrity of the building. He says when the new engineering report is completed, it will identify the same issues with cracked brickwork to be filed and trees that are too close and should be removed or root barriers installed. The applicant further says that by presenting the arborist quotes as an appropriate response, the body corporate has not considered all relevant matters. He says it has not considered what the CSIRO BTF 18 guidelines state or asked for arborist reports. As such, he says not all information is available to establish if there is damage to the structural integrity.
• [49] It appears the applicant wants trees at the scheme removed. The grounds to the application do not clearly identify what trees the applicant wants removed, although he refers to an 18m bark park tree planted within 4 m of the building and gumtree planted some 6 m from the front of the building. It is also not clear that the applicant has obtained quotes or put motions to the body corporate proposing the removal of trees generally or particular trees.
• [50] The engineering reports referred to the potential impact of trees at the scheme. But I cannot identify any definitive conclusions in those reports that any current trees at the scheme have caused or are likely to cause structural or other maintenance issues. It is also not evident to me that the reports expressly recommended the removal of all or any specific trees. I do not consider the reference to general CSIRO or QBCC guidelines amounts to a recommendation that any or all trees at the scheme must be removed to maintain the building in good condition.
• [51] It may be inappropriate to plant trees close to a building. It may be desirable to remove existing trees at the scheme. But that does not of itself mean the body corporate is failing to act reasonably or breaching its maintenance obligations if it does not remove current trees.
• [52] More substantively for present purposes, the applicant has not explained why the body corporate could not lawfully resolve to undertake the tree trimming and removal work proposed by AGM Motions 19A and 19B even if those or other trees at the scheme should be removed. The applicant has not established that the work proposed would prevent vegetation later being removed if it was subsequently decided or determined to be necessary to do so.
• [53] The applicant has not yet satisfied me that there is a legal issue to be determined about the validity of AGM Motions 19A and 19B.

• [54] The applicant seeks a final order that the body corporate 'implements solutions and an action plan' for the outstanding maintenance issues in the existing engineering reports, as identified by the insurer, and any new maintenance issues.
• [55] The body corporate must maintain the common property in good condition. If maintenance is identified and substantiated as necessary (including in expert reports or at the request of the body corporate's insurer), it should be actioned promptly.
• [56] It may be desirable or appropriate for the body corporate to develop a comprehensive plan to address all maintenance work required in the scheme. However, there is not necessarily a statutory requirement for maintenance to be approached in a coordinated way, rather than separate issues being pursued individually.
• [57] Furthermore, despite being a committee member, the applicant has not established that he has submitted a proposal or motions to the committee or a general meeting for an action plan or the development of any action plan that he considers is appropriate or required.
• [58] At this stage the applicant has not substantiated the basis for the first final order to be made.

• [59] The applicant wants a plumbing report obtained within 10 days of the AGM. He also seeks an order that the new engineers report and the plumbing report are completed, to enable quotes to be organised for an EGM prior to the insurance renewal period.
• [60] The body corporate resolved to engage a plumber and an engineer at the EGM in May 2025. An email from the body corporate manager on 31 July 2025 indicated that an engineering inspection had been carried out and a plumbing investigation was to be scheduled. The email noted the engineer would require the plumbing report before finalising its report. It said both reports would be forwarded to the insurer for review once received. It is not clear from the submitted material if the plumbing inspection has subsequently occurred. If not, it is unclear from the submitted material that the applicant has asked the rest of the committee or the body corporate manager why that has not yet occurred, or (in his capacity as a committee member) sought to assist in actioning the EGM resolution.
• [61] The committee must implement the lawful decisions of the body corporate.[20] If the committee has not engaged a plumber in accordance with the EGM resolution, it should do so promptly.
• [62] But the applicant has not explained the basis for an order that the plumbing report be obtained within 10 days of the AGM, or any other specific timeframe. Although it is obviously preferable for the matter to be progressed promptly, the applicant does not substantiate any particular urgency. He does not explain his reference to the next insurance renewal. I note the insurance details in the AGM notice indicate the current policy is in place until January 2026. He refers to a previous lag time to engage a plumber but does not explain that.
• [63] There may be a genuine issue that the body corporate has not implemented resolutions that it passed in May 2025. That can be investigated further in the context of the application for final orders if it has not been resolved by then. But the basis for an interim order is not clear.

• [64] The applicant wants an EGM held to approve motions for basic identified maintenance. The applicant refers to filling cracked brickwork and removing trees, although I am unclear if that is the extent of the work the applicant wants the body corporate to consider motions on.
• [65] East Coast recommended filling cracks in 2020. If that has not occurred, I am not yet clear why. Having regard to the East Coast report, and subject to any subsequent or contrary advice, prima facie existing cracks should be filled to maintain the building in good condition.
• [66] The Booth reports raise the potential for trees and shrubs at the scheme to be removed as part of general exterior maintenance. But as discussed above it is not clear to me that either Booth or East Coast specifically recommended the removal of particular trees or advised that the removal of current trees was necessary to address structural or other maintenance issues at the scheme. The removal of trees may be desirable. But at this stage, the applicant has not clearly demonstrated that the body corporate would be failing to meet its statutory maintenance obligations unless it removes specific trees or trees generally at the scheme.
• [67] Furthermore, the applicant has yet not established a dispute with the body corporate on these matters. If he wants motions passed at a general meeting to pursue these works, or any other work, he has not evidenced that he has actually submitted specific motions proposing the work or requested an EGM to consider those motions, either in his capacity as an owner or as a committee member. That is despite the applicant clearly proposing motions on other matters.
• [68] At this stage the applicant has not substantiated the basis for the third final order to be made.

• [69] The applicant wants an interim order that the secretary, committee members, appointed site representatives and committee decisions are void unless they are communicated to all committee members before action is taken. The applicant then seeks a final order that body corporate site contact, committee members, secretary and committee decisions are communicated to all committee members.
• [70] The applicant refers to certain actions occurring without involving him, including an inspection being organised without informing him. The applicant raises concerns about another committee member controlling the flow of information and committee actions appearing to follow due process but disregarding his concerns.
• [71] I am unclear about the specific issue here. The only way a body corporate can make valid decisions is by a resolution passed at a general meeting or by a committee resolution passed at a committee meeting or via a vote outside a committee meeting. There are detailed processes for those decisions to be made, including for notice to be given.[21] Individual committee members, the body corporate manager, and any appointed representatives cannot make binding decisions for the body corporate.[22]
• [72] But the arrangements for implementing a body corporate decision (such as organising a contractor who the body corporate has resolved to engage) would commonly be undertaken by someone on behalf of the body corporate. It may not be appropriate or practical to involve every owner or every committee member in every step of carrying out such arrangements.
• [73] The body corporate and its committee should act reasonably in this regard. If a contractor needs to enter a lot, specific notice of entry will be required.[23] It would also be appropriate to inform occupiers when contractors will be onsite, particularly if they may be affected. But there is not otherwise any statutory obligation to inform owners about every detail involved in implementing a body corporate decision.
• [74] I am unclear from the interim order sought whether the applicant is disputing the validity of a specific action or decision purportedly taken by or on behalf of the body corporate, or seeking general action about communication. If the applicant feels he has not been adequately informed in the past, he has not established that it has arisen because of some deliberate intent to exclude him or a systemic administrative failing by the body corporate, rather than (for example) an inadvertent miscommunication or oversight.
• [75] At this stage the applicant has not established that there is a genuine issue that the body corporate has failed to meet its statutory obligations in its communications. Moreover, the form of the orders sought by the applicant are unclear. However, particularly in such a small scheme, there may be scope for the committee or all owners to discuss who is responsible for undertaking agreed actions and appropriate communication protocols.

• [76] Having regard to the matters canvassed above, I will comment on whether the particular interim orders sought by the applicant are appropriate or warranted in the circumstances.
• [77] The applicant seeks an interim order for the removal of the AGM motions that he objects to. Removing those motions entirely and preventing them being voted on would finally determine the matter of those motions and would not be appropriate as an interim order. An interim order to prevent the motions being implemented if passed, pending the determination of the substantive final orders about the validity of the motions, could be appropriate. However, where the applicant has not yet substantiated that there is a genuine question about the validity of those motions, I am not satisfied that such an order would currently be warranted.
• [78] The applicant seeks an interim order for a plumber's report to be prepared within 10 days of the AGM. That order is not interim in nature. Moreover, while the applicant would like the report in that timeframe, he has not established a legal basis for the order to be made.
• [79] Finally, the applicant seeks an interim order that certain decisions are void unless communicated to all committee members. Again, that is final rather than interim in nature and so is not amenable to an interim order. And the applicant has not identified any likely or pending 'decisions' that he anticipates will be made that could or should be put on hold pending final orders.

• [80] The applicant may have genuine concerns about the conduct of maintenance at the scheme. It is not necessarily evident from the submitted material that there has been a widespread failure to maintain the scheme. It is also not clear from the submitted material that the body corporate insurer has concerns about the maintenance of the scheme, as distinct from seeking information about the status of various maintenance issues. However, it does seem there are differing views within the committee or between owners on whether some items of work are required, and when and how some work is undertaken. And although I unable to reach any conclusions at this preliminary stage, it may be there has been inadequate maintenance of some elements of the scheme and that further work is required.
• [81] But at this stage the applicant has not identified specific legal issues that would warrant the particular interim orders sought, even if they were able to be made as interim orders. It follows that I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
• [82] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[24]
• [83] The applicant may wish to review the basis for this application before it proceeds, having regard to the matters canvassed above and in light of the outcomes of the AGM. The applicant should also remove the duplicates of supporting documentation so the application can be more easily read and understood.
• [84] If the application proceeds, I will recommend to the Commissioner that it be referred to conciliation. I note that a previous conciliation session on related matters reached an agreement. It may be that the parties could, through a further mediated discussion, reach an agreement on how to identify and progress what further work may be required at the scheme, implementing previous resolutions, and appropriate communication protocols. If the dispute is not otherwise resolved, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions from the committee and all owners in respect of the final orders.

[3] See sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[4] Conciliation application reference 0009-2025

[8] The exact questions and requirements from the insurer, or any concerns it may have, are not clear from the convoluted and incomplete manner in which correspondence has been provided.

[12] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[13] Section 160 of the Act and section 211(3) of the Standard Module

[14] Noting Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 67 and Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 82

[17] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 43, citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423

[18] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 47

[19] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 34, 74 and 98

[21] See sections 54 to 73 of the Standard Module regarding committee decision-making and sections 80 to 118 of the Standard Module regarding general meetings.