INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about motions for works considered at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 24 November 2025.
• [2] It appears that since 2023 waterproofing issues have been identified with a podium level at the scheme. It seems works were pursued, but were alleged to be defective. It seems the previous works were suspended some time ago and remaining incomplete.
• [3] In March 2025 the committee engaged Baxter McIntosh Consulting (Baxter McIntosh). Following investigations, Baxter McIntosh provided a report in July. It said the 3 options were to recommence and redo the podium works, including a new membrane (option 1); repair the existing and complete the balance of the work (option 2); and complete the work in option 1 along with additional work to the driveway and entrance (option 3). Details of the indicative costs and work timeframes was provided. It appears the committee instructed Baxter McIntosh to tender for option 1 works. Baxter McIntosh provided a tender assessment in October which recommended Building Rectification Services (BRS).
• [4] The EGM agenda included a group of same issues motions (Motion 3) for podium remedial works. Motion 3.1 was to engage BRS with the total cost including project management, engineering advice, certifier fees, Q-Levy, and contingencies of $2,612,120.31. Motion 3.2 was to engage BRS with a different project manager for $2,632,899.31. Motions 3.3 and 3.4 were to engage Plexxon with the same project management alternatives, at a cost of $3,013,876.61 and$3,034,655.61 respectively. Each motion proposed a special sinking fund levy. It appears from the submitted material that the Baxter McIntosh reports from July and October, along with the BRS and Plexxon quotes and project management quotes, were given to owners. Motion 3.1 passed with 47 votes for and 30 against.
• [5] The applicant says the motions were voted on without complete, accurate, or balanced information, resulting in uninformed and unreasonable decision-making. They say owners were asked to vote on multi-million dollar works without complete disclosure. The applicant emailed the body corporate on the day of the EGM seeking further information, and says queries were raised at the meeting. The applicant says the committee did not engage with owners or address the concerns, and that owners were confused at the EGM.
• [6] The applicant wants a 'complete disclosure package' and an owner information forum about the works, and then for owners to vote again on the motions. They want the body corporate to be restrained from committing to any contract or raising the special levy until that occurs. They also seek orders relating to the committee's compliance with its governance duties.
• [7] In the interim, the applicant seeks an order that the body corporate be restrained from acting on the motions, committing to any contract relating to the works, collecting the special levy, or pursuing any contractor engagement relating to the motions. They say owners face a significant risk of irreversible financial harm.
• [8] The only issue to decide at this time is whether interim orders are warranted.

• [9] Bayview Shores community titles scheme 4078 (Bayview Shores) is a 101-lot scheme at Runaway Bay. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 11509.
• [10] The application seeks the following interim orders:

The Applicant seeks an interim order that the Body Corporate for Bayview Shores must, until the adjudicator makes a final order or until further order, be restrained from:

1. Acting on Item 3.1 (Motion A), Item 3.2 (Motion B), Item 3.3 (Motion C) or Item 3.4 (Motion D) passed or proposed at the Extraordinary General Meeting dated 24 November 2025.
2. Entering into, signing or otherwise committing to any contract relating to podium or driveway works.
3. Issuing, enforcing, or collecting any special levy connected with the proposed works.
4. Commencing, progressing, or finalising any procurement, tender process, negotiation, or contractor engagement relating to the motions.

• [11] The application then seeks the following final orders:

Order 1 - Declare Motions A, B, C and D Invalid > > Schedule 5 Item 10 (Invalid decisions) > > The Applicant seeks an order declaring the following motions from the EGM Notice dated 24 November 2025 invalid:

• Item 3.1 - Motion A
• Item 3.2 - Motion B
• Item 3.3 - Motion C
• Item 3.4 - Motion D

Order 2 - Full Disclosure Package Before Any Further Vote > > Schedule 5 Item 12 (Require the body corporate to provide documents or information) > > The Body Corporate must provide a complete disclosure package including:

• Baxter McIntosh Options 1, 2 and 3
• Full cost breakdowns (including engineering, certifier, project management, approvals, site establishment/disestablishment, provisional sums, latent conditions)
• Clarification of contract pricing (fixed-price or otherwise)
• Breakdown and justification of the 20% uplift (~$653,030)
• Accurate levy calculations
• Transparent tender comparison

Order 3 - Owners' Information Forum > > Schedule 5 Item 13 (Require the body corporate or committee to perform duties) > > Once disclosure is provided, the Body Corporate must hold an open information forum where:

• Owners may ask questions without restriction
• Full and accurate answers must be provided
• The consultant (Baxter McIntosh) must attend for questioning
• No coercion, pressure or one-sided influence may be applied

Order 4 - Mandatory Re-Vote Without Costing a New EGM > > Schedule 5 Item 10 (Re-vote), Item 12 (process directions) > > Owners must be given a fresh and fully informed opportunity to vote on all motions related to the podium and driveway works using:

• Adjournment/continuation of the existing meeting, or
• Written voting, or
• Electronic voting

No costs associated with calling a new EGM are to be incurred. > > Order 5 - Prevent Contract Signing Until Re-Vote Completed > > Schedule 5 Item 4 (Final order restraining action) > > The Body Corporate must be restrained from entering into, signing or otherwise committing to any contract relating to the podium or driveway works until:

1. Full disclosure is provided, and
2. Owners complete a fresh and informed vote.

Order 6 - Prevent Issue or Collection of Special Levies > > Schedule 5 Item 3 (Interim) & Item 4 (Final) > > The Body Corporate must not issue, enforce or collect any special levy relating to the proposed works until final determination of this application or further order. > > Order 7 - Committee Compliance With CMS Governance Obligations > > Schedule 5 Item 13 > > The Committee must comply with its statutory and CMS governance duties, including:

• Acting reasonably (Act ss 94(2), 100)
• Providing full and transparent disclosure
• Responding to owner questions
• Managing finances properly
• Ensuring procedural fairness
• Avoiding misleading or incomplete information

• [12] 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 CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[1] 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]

• [13] This application was lodged on 20 November 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[4] which was amended.[5]
• [14] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner then referred this application to me to decide if the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[6] notwithstanding that notice of the application had not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [15] In the first instance, I sought information from the body corporate.[7] The chairperson advised that Motion 3.1 passed, the EGM minutes were being finalised, the contract terms were being finalised, and the committee planned to engage a solicitor to review the contract. They said the committee proposed to issue levy notices when the minutes were finalised and sign the contract once it had been scrutinised. However, the committee undertook in writing not to issue the levy notice or enter into the contract until the interim order was decided.
• [16] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected persons before an interim order is decided. However, given the circumstances (including the undertaking), I gave the committee a limited opportunity to respond to the application. A submission was made. The EGM minutes were also provided.

• [17] The body corporate says the waterproof membrane on the podium level has failed and requires significant repair. It says water cascades into the carpark below in heavy rain. It says there was significant expenditure on waterproofing work in 2023 that has already failed. It notes its strict liability to maintain the podium in good and structurally sound condition.
• [18] The body corporate says it obtained advice from a project manager and quotes from reputable contractors, and held the EGM to consider motions to perform the works and raise funds to pay for it. On 23 October the chairperson provided a report to all owners including the project manager's reports, tender documents, and an invitation to an information session. It says it intends to enter into a contract with the successful contactor as soon as possible after its lawyer has confirmed the terms are satisfactory, with works scheduled to commence on 19 January 2026.
• [19] It notes the applicant did not attend the information session or the EGM. It says the applicant implies he is representing a group of owners but provides no evidence of that.
• [20] It says the applicant lists certain statutory provisions but fails to articulate how those provisions have been offended. No evidence has been provided that it has contravened the listed provisions. It identifies that some provisions cited are irrelevant to the circumstances.
• [21] It says the allegation that insufficient information was provided for the EGM is unfounded and unsupported by fact. That is merely the applicant's opinion. The majority of voters were satisfied with the information provided and voted for the relevant motions.
• [22] It says even if some crucial information was missing, it is well established that a shortage of information is insufficient to invalidate a motion if voters were not misled as a consequence. The committee was not required to include all background material or provide all possible options relating to the repair of the podium. There is no obligation to present both sides of the argument or for meeting notices to be balanced or exhaustive. If voters were concerned about insufficient information, their recourse was to vote against the motion.
• [23] It says there is no evidence the financial information was misleading. The applicant does not identify missing cost items, there was nothing misleading about the levy information, and the claimed uncertainty around the contract structure is not explained. All costings in Motion 3.1 were based on the quotes in the EGM notice and were self-explanatory:
  1. The 'unexplained 20% uplift' is simply the adjustment for the 20% discount for the timely payment of the contribution.
  2. It is obvious the BRS quote is not a fixed price as it refers to items as 'provisional' and the motion includes a 10% contingency.
  3. Provisional sums are usual for work of this nature.
  4. The 10% contingency was recommended by the project manager. There is no statutory requirement to include a particular contingency percentage.
  5. It is plain from the motion that there is only one instalment of the levy.
• [24] The body corporate denies any procedural unfairness. The applicant does not identify the details of any questions ignored, defected, or inadequately answered. The applicant does not articulate which owners were confused or the circumstances. Any confusion about the amount of the levy was due to the owner's misunderstanding and not because the motion was misleading. It denies failing to engage with the applicant. It responded within the 7 days requested in the applicant's letter. But the applicant lodged this application before then. The EGM notice was given pursuant to the statutory timeframes, and it held an onsite forum.
• [25] It says the committee preferred option 1 as presented by the project manager and arranged for quotes on that basis. There was no obligation to present every conceivable option.
• [26] It asserts there is no serious legal question to be determined, the application is based on opinion and not law, and the applicant does not identify any contravention of a relevant statutory provision. The EGM notice complied with the requirements of the regulations. It says the application is misconceived, frivolous and without substance.
• [27] If the interim orders are granted but the final orders are dismissed, it notes a risk of the contractors increasing their rates in the interim, necessitating further unnecessary costs for the body corporate. Moreover, it will be prevented from fulfilling the statutory maintenance obligations for which it is strictly liable. And if a contravention justified invalidating Motion 3.1, where the majority of owners support the motion steps could be taken to ratify it.

• [28] After I received the body corporate's submission, the applicant sought to submit supplementary information, including documentation and commentary. They provided documents relating to a committee motion to engage solicitors, the applicant's request that the committee pause all podium-related expenditure, and an update to all owners from the chairperson about the dispute. The applicant also provided a report from MRC Consulting Engineers (MRC) dated 15 August 2025 providing a 'structural assessment of external landscape podium suspended slab'. The applicant claims this directly relevant report was withheld from owners and is 'probative of the appropriate decision-making pathway'. They assert the report supports the viability of the option 2 repairs rather than the full scope works.
• [29] The applicant did not provide their supplementary material to the body corporate, but I did not consider it appropriate to delay the determination of this matter by seeking comment on it. In the circumstances I have accepted and reviewed the material, and will comment on it where relevant below.

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

• [31] Any order granted must be just and equitable. [8] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[9]
• [32] An adjudicator must first be be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions to be decided. They must then consider whether the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That means an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact 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.

• [33] Substantively, the applicant appears to assert the information provided to owners for EGM Motion 3.1 to 3.4 was not sufficient, and that there was insufficient engagement with owner queries about the proposal, such that owners were not properly on notice of the motions or able to make an informed decision.
• [34] At this preliminary stage, I will note the body corporate's general obligations and the case law regarding the information required to be given to owners. I will then comment on the particular concerns raised by the applicant and the final orders sought.
• [35] I note that an adjudicator cannot intervene in body corporate decisions simply because someone disagrees with them. One of the objects of the Act is to "balance the rights of individuals with the responsibility for self management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes."[10] In light of this objective, a body corporate decision will only be overturned if it is unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. To do otherwise would be an "unwarranted interference in the ability of the body corporate to make its own decisions, and to independently manage its affairs as contemplated in the secondary objects of the Act."[11]

• [36] The body corporate and its committee must act reasonably in making decisions.[12]
• [37] The primary way a body corporate makes decisions is in general meetings. Voting at a general meeting is the principal forum under the legislation for owner consultation.
• [38] The regulations provide for the conduct of general meetings, including the requirement to give written notice of the meeting.[13] There is considerable case law about the adequacy of notice for a meeting and the duty to inform owners about the meaning and effect of motions.
• [39] The District Court of Queensland has said, regarding the notice of a meeting:[14]

There is certainly an obligation to give proper notice of what is actually to be considered by the meeting, and to point out the relevant consequences of the approval of the resolution. If there is a failure to give proper notice of the meeting, which may occur if the notice of the proposed resolution is misleading as to what is really proposed, or its effect and implications, then that may well impact on the validity of the resolution, because in such circumstances there was either no valid notice of the meeting or no valid notice of the proposed resolution.

• [40] Similarly, the Queensland Court of Appeal has said:[15]

Proprietors of lots are entitled to expect that materials provided to them by the body corporate committee in respect of matters to be voted on at a body corporate meeting are accurate and not misleading in any way. Where there has been a breach of the committee's obligation in that regard and where it appears that the outcome of voting on a motion may have been affected, an obvious course to take by a tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter, is to set aside the tainted resolution so that the proprietors may have the opportunity of voting on the matter uninfluenced by tainted information.

• [41] However, the District Court also cited a Federal Court case about the fiduciary duty to provide material information about what is to be considered at a meeting which said:[16]

The need to make full and fair disclosure must be tempered by the need to present a document that is intelligible to reasonable members of the class to whom it is directed, and is likely to assist rather than to confuse. ... In the circumstances the court should not be quick to conclude that a contravention ... has occurred because other information could have been provided that was not.

• [42] Moreover, it accepted there is no requirement that material given to voters be balanced.[17]
• [43] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has also said (citations omitted):[18]

The members of a community title scheme have a legitimate expectation of a reasonably sufficient standard of information allowing them weigh up the pros and cons and cast a meaningful vote at a general meeting in their own best interest, regardless of the impact it has on the rights or expectations of others. > > The duty to inform extends to giving bona fide advice. However, the dominant purpose of the explanatory material is to inform the voters, not to present both sides of the argument. > > Explanatory information should be "... full, frank and open. It must not in any case be misleading or 'tricky', whether by suppression of facts or in what it actually states." > > An explanatory note is not construed benevolently. The test is whether it gives fair warning to the members of the matters to be dealt with by the meeting. Sometimes too much detail can mislead a voter reading a note quickly, as much as too little. > > Inaccurate, inadequate or misleading explanatory notes may result in the resolution passing a motion to be declared void if the decision of a lot owner to vote for it was adversely affected by the tainted information.

• [44] Whether a notice or explanatory materials properly informs owners about a motion must be considered in view of how the scheme operates and what is proposed.[19] The District Court has noted the need for a complainant to 'identify with some precision' what was not disclosed that meant there was a failure to make full and fair disclosure.[20] A party would need to establish what was misleading or inaccurate, how, and how that was material. Of particular relevance will be evidence that voters were actually misled by the information.

• [45] Although limited detail is provided, the applicant raises various issues.
• [46] The applicant says options 2 and 3 from the Baxter McIntosh report were 'withheld' and 'suppressed' in the EGM material. It seems they are concerned that Baxter McIntosh were 'directed' to pursue option 1 and that motions for options 2 and 3 were not put to owners.
• [47] It appears from the submitted material that Baxter McIntosh's July report was either included in the EGM notice or separately provided by the chairperson. So, owners who chose to read the material related to the EGM would have been aware of those alternative options.
• [48] With any project or proposal that a body corporate considers there may be multiple ways of proceeding. There is no inherent obligation on a body corporate to investigate every possible alternative or submit them owners. Pursuing a tender process and motions on multiple permeations of a project would likely be more time-consuming and expensive, and potentially more confusing for owners. The fact that there may be more than one viable option does not of itself mean a decision to pursue only one of those approaches is invalid.
• [49] Prima facie, there seems to be no reason why the committee could not decide to pursue the approach in option 1 and submit motions to owners on that basis. If owners did not agree with that approach, they could have voted against all the options in EGM Motion 3. And owners were always at liberty to submit their own motions.
• [50] Option 2 would apparently be a cheaper option. But a body corporate decision is not unreasonable simply because it is not the cheapest. There may be disadvantages to option 2, such as the willingness of contractors to undertake the work and the potential for additional costs in future with a less comprehensive approach. The applicant appears to believe option 3 would be the cheapest and least invasive. But that seems to misapprehend the July report. Option 3 is described as including all the work in option 1 plus additional work and so would appear to be the most extensive and expensive.
• [51] At this stage, the applicant has not provided evidence or argument to substantiate that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to pursue the approach proposed by option 1.
• [52] The applicant says major cost items were missing, and the absence of that information prevented informed decision-making at the EGM. The applicant provides lists of brief descriptors of what was allegedly omitted, although the listed items are largely not explained.
• [53] The applicant's lists include engineering, certifier, and project management, but a cost for each of those is clearly identified in all four motions. The applicant also refers to driveway transitions, approvals, and latent conditions. These items are not explained, and I am unable to identify from the submitted material what the applicant is referring to. The applicant does not substantiate that these items relate to costs the body corporate will incur with the works.
• [54] The applicant says 'provisional sums' were omitted and there was no explanation of provisional sums or contract risk. The BRS quote includes provisional amounts for screed, tiles, fencing, irrigation and landscaping, drainage and electrical. It is not apparent these costs have been omitted; rather BRS has only estimated allowances for those items. I understand it is common in significant projects that some costs cannot be definitively determined in advance, and the inclusion of a contingency provides for circumstances where estimates fall short. The applicant has not established that this is not a reasonable way to proceed or evidenced that the estimates are unsuitable. If the applicant is referring to something else on this point, I cannot identify what that is from the submitted material.
• [55] The applicant refers to site establishment/disestablishment being omitted from the BRS quote. The body corporate does not comment on this item. The BRS quote includes site establishment at item 1 of stage 1. The quote and the disputed motions state that stages 1 and 2 in the quote are priced to be run as one project, with no site disestablishment and establishment. On its face, I assume this to mean that, while there are 2 stages of the project, as they will be run as one project there will be no need (and so no allowance) for BRS to disestablish the site after stage 1 and then reestablish again before stage 2. The applicant does not demonstrate that the body corporate will incur costs that are not included.
• [56] Albeit necessarily complex, prima facie the submitted quotes and detail of the EGM motions appear largely self-explanatory. I am not satisfied the applicant has yet identified any known costs missing from the motions or from the information provided to voters for the EGM.
• [57] The applicant says financial disclosure was incomplete, exposing owners to an unacceptable financial risk. They say owners cannot know the true financial exposure.
• [58] The applicant refers to an unexplained 20% uplift of approximately $653,030. The applicant does not explain what they mean by this. Like the body corporate, I assume the applicant is referring to the fact that the amount to be raised by the special levy in each motion is higher than the total cost of the proposal. However, each motion clearly states that levies are subject to a 20% discount for prompt payment.[21] To provide that discount to owners, the body corporate must necessarily set a total levy amount that is sufficiently above the total amount required to implement the motion while allowing for the discount.
• [59] The applicant says there was no confirmation of whether the BRS contract was fixed price. They refer to a high risk of 'variations and cost blowouts', but this is not explained or substantiated. As the body corporate notes, the quote includes provisional amounts and the motion includes a contingency. So, it is self-evident that it is not 'fixed price'. On its face, the BRS quote and the body corporate's resulting liability appears tolerably clear.
• [60] The applicant variously says there was incomplete tender information and no transparent tender comparison. But it seems Baxter McIntosh's 7-page tender assessment was either included in the EGM notice or provided separately by the chairperson. That report clearly compares the 3 tenders received, including costs and other considerations. The applicant does not explain any deficiency in the tender process (if that is alleged) or what further tender information could be provided or would rationally assist voter decision-making.
• [61] The applicant says the 10% contingency is objectively insufficient. However, the applicant does not explain this assertion or provide any evidence to support it. The body corporate says Baxter McIntosh recommended that amount. As I understand it, a contingency of 5-10% is standard for construction work in Australia. The applicant does not say what alternative contingency amount should have been set or why.
• [62] The applicant says the levy wording was misleading. They say it referred to 'instalment 1', implying undisclosed future levies. The description of the levy appears consistent with the usual form of such motions in bodies corporate. On its face, the motions accord with the regulations.[22] I am unclear why any voter would read the motions and believe a further instalment might be raised. The body corporate confirms there is only one levy instalment.
• [63] At this point the applicant has not established a genuine question about whether there was adequate disclosure to owners of the financial impacts of EGM Motion 3 or that owners have been misled as to the financial risk presented by the podium works proposal.
• [64] The applicant says owners were denied procedural fairness, with legitimate questions ignored, deflected, or inadequately answered. They say owners were denied a fair opportunity to understand the proposal before voting. They object to the EGM proceeding despite queries not being answered. They allege confusion and distress by owners.
• [65] Owners were apparently given notice of the EGM on 24 October. It seems from the submitted material that there was some community discussion on the matter, with various correspondence circulated. The chairperson gave owners a report for the EGM including information about the podium works. Baxter McIntosh attended an information session on 7 November for owners to ask questions to enable an informed vote.
• [66] It is unsurprising that owners had queries about this significant project. But little evidence has been provided that queries were not addressed. And if the applicant and others were dissatisfied with the information and responses received, the applicant has not yet established that the committee acted unreasonably in handing owner queries.
• [67] The applicant only emailed the committee via the body corporate manager a couple of hours before the EGM was due to start, and after this application had already been lodged, requesting a response within 7 days but also asking that the EGM be deferred or adjourned. The applicant claims they were told the committee would not be responding, although that is not substantiated. The body corporate says it did respond within 7 days.
• [68] It is not clear why the applicant expected the committee to be able to respond before the EGM. Moreover, I do not see why the body corporate should be expected to cancel or defer an EGM that was ostensibly validly called because some owners had queries about some motions (particularly when there were unrelated motions on the EGM agenda).
• [69] The applicant also does not evidence their claims of owner distress or confusion. There may be understandable concern at the significant proposed cost, and the complexity of the material. But the applicant does not explain what different or further information might have materially changed that concern or might have changed the outcome of voting.
• [70] The applicant alleges an elderly resident publicly believed their levy would be much less than it actually is. They say this was due to the misleading notice. No evidence is provided of this claim. It is not clear if the owner involved voted in favour of any of the disputed motions or would have voted differently if they had different information. But the fact that an owner may have misunderstood how lot entitlements operate in a body corporate does not of itself mean the information provided by the body corporate was misleading or deficient.
• [71] Prima facie, the body corporate complied with the statutory process for decision-making at a general meeting by providing a comprehensive written notice to owners at least 21 days before the EGM. On the material presented, the applicant has not yet established a genuine question that the consideration of Motion 3 was procedurally defective.
• [72] In their supplementary material, the applicant claims the body corporate withheld the MRC engineering report from owners. They assert the report supports the viability of option 2 works as an alternative. They allege that withholding the report from owners was a breach of transparency and disclosure, denying owners the 'opportunity to evaluate the matter on a complete and proper evidentiary foundation'.
• [73] Owners who chose to read Baxter McIntosh's July report would have been aware the body corporate had engaged MRC to provide advice related to the podium works. Although it was provided before the MRC report, Baxter McIntosh commented on MRC's initial reactions. Owners could have asked for copies of any reports from MRC at any time.
• [74] It is not immediately clear to me why the applicant asserts the MRC report supports the viability of option 2 as an alternative to option 1. And the fact that an option is viable from an engineering perspective does not mean it is necessarily preferable from other perspectives. But in any event, as canvassed above, the existence of alternatives to address the podium issues does not mean the body corporate had to pursue and present every option.
• [75] The key issue with the MRC report is whether the body corporate had an obligation to give it to owners as part of the material for the EGM or otherwise, and whether owners were not properly on notice of the proposals in Motion 3 without that report. At this stage, the applicant has not substantiated that. Some voters may have been interested in the report. But it is comparatively technical and does not appear to address the specifics of the proposals put to the EGM or any alternatives. Given the volume of other documentation necessarily provided to owners, there is arguably potential that the inclusion of this report could have served to confuse rather than inform. The applicant does not suggest any owner who voted for Motion 3.1 would have voted differently if they had seen the MRC report.

• [76] I will comment briefly on the final orders sought.
• [77] By order 1 the applicant wants to declare Motions A to D (Motions 3.1 to 3.4) at the EGM invalid. Although I have expressed some preliminary views on the applicant's objections to the motions above, this issue remains for determination.
• [78] With order 2, the applicant wants a 'full disclosure package' provided to owners before any further vote. If it is determined that there was insufficient information provided to owners about the disputed motions, such that the motions are invalid, it could be appropriate to require any new consideration of the proposals to include more detailed information. However, as commented above, it is not yet clear that the information provided was deficient.
• [79] The applicant then seeks (order 3) that, after a full disclosure package is provided, there be an owner forum. The basis for this order is not explained. It is open to a body corporate to have public forum to discuss significant proposals before voting on them. It is apparent that the body corporate did so in this case after the EGM notice was issued but well before the EGM. However, there is no general statutory obligation to do so.
• [80] Next (order 4) the applicant wants the proposal to be revoted on. However, they appear to want that to occur without the costs of a new EGM. If the disputed motions are invalid, they may need to be reconsidered. But any new vote could not occur in any way other than by a new general meeting called in accordance with the statutory provisions with the attendant administrative costs. There are no shortcut means of owners voting on the proposal again.
• [81] By order 5 the applicant wants the body corporate not to sign a contract until further disclosure and a new vote. Whether a final order to that effect could be made would depend on whether the contract was signed at the time, which is depending on this interim order.
• [82] With order 6 the applicant wants to restrain the body corporate from raising a special levy until final determination of this application or further order. That is essentially an interim rather than a final order.
• [83] Finally, the applicant seeks (order 7) for committee compliance with its statutory and CMS duties. They refer in very general terms to things they want the committee to do, but there is little explanation or reasoning given. These may be things the body corporate should do. But while the applicant indicates objections to the committee's approach to this matter, he does not seek to invalidate specific committee decisions or actions. And the applicant does not explain what utility there would be in a general order stating that the committee must do things that the body corporate already has a statutory obligation to do.
• [84] In the supplementary material, the applicant objects to the committee's spending on matters relating to the dispute since the EGM and to the conduct of the chairperson. However, the applicant has not amended the application to seek specific orders about those things.

• [85] An interim order can be appropriate to preserve the status quo or the interests of parties until the substantive issues in dispute in the application can be determined.
• [86] In this case the body corporate is planning to enter into a contract which will have significant financial consequences. If the contract was signed and work commenced, it may be difficult to subsequently withdraw from the contract and stop the work without a significant financial penalty. Moreover, the quantum of the special levy is likely to have a substantial financial impact on individual owners.
• [87] Accordingly, if the applicant substantiated that there were genuine legal questions to be decided about the EGM motions, the extent of the consequences would likely favour interim relief. However, if the applicant has not established reasonable prospects of success in the final relief sought, an interim order will not be warranted regardless of the significance or urgency of the circumstances. The latter is the case here.

• [88] The applicant bears the onus of establishing there are genuine legal issues to be determined and that the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant interim relief. I acknowledge that some owners may be concerned about the current proposal for podium remediation works and the considerable cost to the body corporate. Some may prefer a different approach. However, the existence of those concerns and alternative views is not of itself sufficient basis for an adjudicator to intervene.
• [89] It may be the body corporate could have approached this project in a different way or could have provided different or further information to owners. But at this stage the applicant has not established a prima facie case that the approach taken by the body corporate has been inherently unreasonable or otherwise contrary to its statutory obligations.
• [90] Moreover, the applicant has not established a prima facie case that the information provided to owners was so deficient as to fail to adequately put owners on notice of the meaning and effect of the proposal in the disputed motions.
• [91] Notwithstanding the significance of the project and the planned expenditure, in the absence of a prima facie case the applicant has not established the basis for an interim order to be made. I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
• [92] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the dispute resolution provisions.[23]
• [93] The applicant may wish to review the application having regard to the matters outlined above. If the application proceeds, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions in respect of the final orders from the committee and all owners.

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

[11] Adjudicator K Ryan in Massey Lodge [2004] QBCCMCmr 356, paras 13- 14

[12] Section 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[14] McGill DCJ in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, para 50

[15] Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 319 at para 37

[16] Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452, p 467-8 cited in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences [2008] QDC 300, para 62

[17] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, at paras 31-32, 64

[18] Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99, at paras 56-60

[19] Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland and Anor [2021] QCATA 119 at para 46

[20] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, para 62, 71-72 and citing Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452 at p 468

[21] As provided for in section 164 of the Standard Module

[22] Section 162(2) of the Standard Module