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

• the common property roof requires urgent repair
• the body corporate resolved to engage a contractor to repair it
• a motion to borrow money to pay for the repairs failed to achieve a resolution without dissent.

• the opposition to the motion to borrow money was unreasonable in the circumstances
• to give effect to the motion.

Act, s 281; Standard Module, ss 89(3)-(5), 171(2), 173(1)-(2), 180(1)&(2)(b)(ii); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).

• [1] Ms Bettink makes this application with the support of the body corporate committee to challenge the failure of motion 2.1 at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 1 October 2025. The motion proposed taking out a loan of up to $500,000 "to fund the Body Corporate's obligations to meet working capital requirements, fund remediation works and to comply with its obligations under law". It required a resolution without dissent but failed with 9 votes in favour and 1 against.[1]
• [2] Despite the generality of the motion, it seems to be understood that the money was to fund works to repair the roofs of the buildings housing lots 1-2, 3-7 and 16-20, water damage to the interiors of those lots, and the installation of new balcony roofs to prevent future water ingress. The body corporate had resolved to accept a quotation for the work at an EGM the preceding April but voted down a motion to take out a loan to pay for it. The October EGM gave owners the choice of two loans and a special levy. All failed.
• [3] By failing to raise the money for the repairs, Ms Bettink argues the body corporate is in breach of its obligations to:
  1. administer, manage and control the common property and body corporate assets reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners,[2] and
  2. maintain the common property in good condition.[3]
• [4] She seeks an order to give effect to motion 2.1.

• [5] The body corporate required a resolution without dissent to authorise a debt greater than $5,000 (20 lots x $250) pursuant to motion 2.1.[4] It failed to attract that level of support.
• [6] I can reverse that decision if Ms Bettink can show the motion failed to pass "because of opposition that in the circumstances is unreasonable".[5] However, the motion was decided by secret ballot and Ms Bettink does not know who cast the dissenting vote or why.
• [7] That does not necessarily preclude the order she seeks if it can be shown that no reasonable objection to motion 2.1 was possible in the circumstance. But that is not evident.
• [8] Motion 2.1 was part of a group of same issue motions proposing different ways of raising the $500,000, like so:

• [9] Owners could vote or not on any of the motions. Any motion that achieved the required resolution would qualify as a potential decision of the body corporate, and the qualifying motion with the highest vote in favour would become the body corporate's decision.[6] All motions were decided by secret ballot.
• [10] The person who voted against motion 2.1 may have voted in favour of 2.2 or 2.3. It would not necessarily be unreasonable or a dereliction of the body corporate's statutory maintenance obligations to prefer to fund the repairs via a special levy (to avoid paying interest, say) than a loan from Lannock Capital.
• [11] That is enough to decide the application. I cannot assume that the dissenter's opposition to motion 2.1 was unreasonable in these circumstances.
• [12] Some submissions point out that owners were not given a choice between at least two quotations for the repairs at the April EGM. Motion 5 of that EGM proposed the engagement of Big Tony's Building and Maintenance at an estimated cost of $518,485. Where a motion proposes work exceeding the "relevant limit for major spending", owners must be given a choice between at least two quotations.[7] By default, the limit is $1,100 x the number of lots (20), or $22,000 at Beachwalk.[8]
• [13] That could also have been a reasonable basis for opposing motion 2.1. An owner who was not convinced that the proposed contractor offered good value, or who thought the decision to engage them invalid, might reasonably oppose a motion to raise the money to pay that contractor.
• [14] There does not seem to be any question that the roofs at Beachwalk require urgent repair or replacement. At a scheme created under a building unit plan of subdivision, the external surfaces of the building are common property that the body corporate must maintain in good condition.[9] It must also maintain "roofing structures providing protection" in structurally sound condition.[10] Where an owner's property is damaged because the body corporate fails to meet its maintenance obligations, the body corporate can be ordered to repair it or pay reimbursement for repairs.[11]
• [15] But that does not mean that any opposition to the proposal to take out a loan with Lannock Capital must have been unreasonable. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

[1] Standard Module, s 171(2).

[3] Standard Module, s 180(1).

[6] Standard Module, s 89(3)-(5).

[7] Standard Module, s 173(1)-(2).

[8] Standard Module, schedule 1, "relevant limit for major spending".

[9] Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C & 49C(4); Standard Module, s 180(1).

[10] Standard Module, s 180(2)(b)(ii).