Beaches [2025] QBCCMCmr 448 (11 December 2025)

Act, ss 20, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170(1), 201(3) & (5).

• [1] Ms Luckins, director of the applicant, says her lot 310 was damaged by water that leaked from Mr and Ms Crombie's hot water service in lot 319 above. She paid a carpenter $1,072.50 to replace and repaint water-damaged ceiling, cornices and shelves. She asks that Mr and Ms Crombie reimburse her.
• [2] Mr and Ms Crombie do not accept that the water leaked from their hot water service. They are guided by the caretaking service contractor, Mr Keech, who thinks it more likely that the water was condensation dripping from pipes in lot 310's ceiling void.
• [3] Ms Luckins seeks orders in the following terms:

That the owners of apartment 319 acknowledge their responsibly for the damage caused to apartment 310 and compensate the owner of that apartment for the cost of repairs to the damage caused by the EOL [escape of liquid] (ref: Graeme Lawrence invoice 0468.pdf) - $1,072.50 and the costs the owner of incurred in applying for conciliation - $110.30 and adjudication - $114.10, a total $1,296.90. > > That the owners of apartment 319 warrants that repair work has been carried out so as to prevent, as far as is reasonable, any reoccurrence of damage being caused to apartment 310 by leaking water.

• [4] Ms Luckins' carpenter observed and photographed water stains on a pipe penetrating the slab separating lots 310 and 319. He entered lot 319 and found that the drip tray under the hot water service above the affected part of lot 310 leaked, concluding that was the cause of the damage.
• [5] Mr and Ms Crombie and Mr Keech accept that the drip tray was in poor condition and they have replaced it. However, they say the tray is dry during normal operation and there is no evidence the HWS leaked into it such that it could then have escaped into lot 310. Mr Keech attended the inspection with Ms Luckins' carpenter and said the carpenter manually released water into the drip tray to test it, which would not normally occur.
• [6] Ms Luckins sent in a photograph showing water standing in the new drip tray to demonstrate that the HWS releases water. Mr Keech said only that he was not there when the photograph was taken and cannot comment on how the water came to be released.
• [7] Mr Keech explains the likely cause of the water damage to lot 319 as follows:

All 18 units at Beaches share a design where air-conditioning condensate drains are plumbed into waste pipes with U-bends. These U-bends remain filled with cold water during normal AC operation, and condensation can form on the pipes, occasionally dripping into the ceiling void below. This is a common and longstanding design feature...

• [8] The pipe with the water marks in the ceiling void of lot 319 features a U-bend as Mr Keech describes. The formerly damaged ceiling is directly below it.
• [9] Mr Keech said he has never known a hot water service to leak at Beaches, but he has seen damage like that found in lot 310 caused by condensation dripping from pipes in the ceiling void. He submitted photographs of a similar issue in lot 316 that was addressed by insulating the pipes to reduce condensation.
• [10] I could order Mr and Ms Crombie to pay for the repairs to lot 310 if satisfied the damage was caused by their failure to maintain their lot in good condition.[1] If the water escaped from their leaky drip tray as suspected by Ms Luckins and her carpenter, I would hold them responsible for the cost of repairs.
• [11] But Mr and Ms Crombie are not responsible for the maintenance of utility infrastructure outside the boundaries of their lot, like the pipes in the ceiling void of lot 310.[2]
• [12] The application turns on whether I consider it more likely than not that the water that caused the damage leaked from the drip tray in lot 319. I am not sufficiently satisfied of that. Mr Keech's explanation seems equally plausible. I cannot say whether the water marks on the pipe were caused by water from above or condensation due to cold water from the air conditioner pooling in the U-bend.
• [13] Ms Luckins' carpenter offered a thoughtful opinion of the cause of the damage, but he is not a plumber or builder. I am not aware that he has any particular expertise in the usual operation of hot water services.
• [14] I am reluctant to attach too much weight to the photograph of water standing in the new drip tray in the absence of an expert assessment of how it came to be there.
• [15] I am not aware that Mr Keech is a plumber either, but he is clearly experienced with the maintenance of this specific building and has seen similar damage in other lots.
• [16] Ultimately, I need not decide which explanation is correct. The application fails if I do not think it most likely that the water came from the drip tray in lot 319. It may have, but I am unsure.
• [17] For that reason, I will not order reimbursement of the carpenter's bill, nor will I order Mr and Ms Crombie to "warrant that repair work has been carried out". It is undisputed that the drip tray has been replaced in any event.
• [18] I can only order reimbursement of conciliation and adjudication application fees if the respondent failed to participate in conciliation without reasonable excuse.[3] That was not the case. Mr Crombie participated in conciliation with Ms Luckins.
• [19] The application is dismissed.

[1] Act, s 281; Accommodation Module, s 201(3).

[2] Act, s 20; Accommodation Module, ss 170(1) & 201(5).