Bell Park [2025] QBCCMCmr 367 (24 October 2025)

The Body Corporate for Bell Park & Cambridge Management Services (respondents)

COMMITTEE PROCEDURES; GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES; REASONABLENESS - whether the body corporate committee must:

table, minute, decide, and/or reply to the applicant's correspondence
provide the applicant with insurance documents
continue to send notices and minutes of meetings to the applicant by post, and
refrain from offering proprietors the choice of not receiving minutes and notices, or receiving them by email;

whether the body corporate gave proprietors minutes of a committee meeting later than required; whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or without substance.

Act, ss 38D, 40, 45, 46(3), 94C, 127(3)(b), schedule 2 part 2 s 13, schedule 4 s 10(e); Electronic Transactions Act 2001, s 11.

The minutes of the committee meeting held on 24 August 2023 were not given to proprietors within 21 days as mandated by section 45(7)(a) of the Act.
The application is otherwise dismissed.
A further order will be made with respect to costs.

[1] While Mr Clarke says his application against the body corporate for Bell Park and its body corporate manager, Cambridge Management Services, "relates specifically to the improper preparation and convening of the Annual General Meeting 2025", he seeks no orders to address that. Instead, he seeks orders in the following terms:

An order is sought for the Bell Park Body Corporate (BC) to acknowledge receipt of correspondence sent by the lot owner between 01 January 2023 and the present date and to provide individual responses to each issue or query identified in that correspondence.
Basis for Order: The lot owner asserts that multiple pieces of correspondence have gone unacknowledged and seeks a formal response to each, with a request that these matters be tabled at the next Committee Meeting.

An order is sought directing the BC to confirm that the lot owner's personal data was not shared with Paradise Pest and Property without the lot owner's prior consent and to clarify the dispatch date of a notice regarding pest spraying services.
Basis for Order: The lot owner has raised concerns about potential unauthorized sharing of personal data and discrepancies in the notification timeline for pest spraying services.

An order is sought for the BC to provide clarification regarding adjustments made to levies, specifically concerning a stamp duty amount and unpaid invoices, as disputed by the lot owner.
Basis for Order: The lot owner is formally disputing the levies under Part V of the BUGT Act, citing discrepancies in the amounts charged and the lack of clarity on unpaid invoices.

An order is sought directing the BC to provide the lot owner with a copy of the Product Disclosure Documentation (PDS) and Certificate of Insurance as per their entitlement under the Insurance Contracts Act (1984).
Basis for Order: The lot owner disputes the accuracy of insurance levies and seeks transparency through the provision of insurance documentation.

An order is sought for the BC to table the lot owner's correspondence dated 27 December 2024 at the next Committee Meeting and to address the issues raised concerning the insurance levy.
Basis for Order: The lot owner seeks assurance that their concerns regarding the insurance levy will be formally addressed by the Committee.

An order is sought declaring that the BC is in breach of the Building Units and Group Titles and Other Legislation Bill 2022 for the late provision of Committee Minutes from the meeting held on 24 August 2023, and directing them to comply with statutory provisions for timely provision of minutes.
Basis for Order: The lot owner asserts that the minutes were provided outside the statutory timeframe, constituting a breach, and seeks rectification.

An order is sought directing the BC to table specific motions and directives outlined in the lot owner's correspondence dated 09 January 2024 at the next Committee Meeting on 21 February 2024, and to record the outcomes in the meeting minutes.
Basis for Order: The lot owner is exercising their statutory right to put motions to Committee Meetings and seeks assurance that these will be formally considered and recorded.

An order is sought declaring that the BC is in breach of the Building Unit and Group Titles Act (1980) and the December 2022 Revisions, due to a failure to table and address correspondence from the lot owner, and directing the BC to properly consider the matters raised.
Basis for Order: The lot owner contends that their correspondence was not given due consideration, contrary to statutory requirements, and seeks rectification of this procedural failure.

An order is sought directing the BC to respond to the lot owner's correspondence dated 30 June 2023, addressing issues and concerns raised, and to provide a detailed response within 12 weeks of that date.
Basis for Order: The lot owner asserts that their initial correspondence was not adequately addressed by a mere 'Notice of Receipt' and seeks a substantive response to the issues raised.

An order is sought directing the BC to provide clarification regarding correspondence referenced in a notice dated 01 April 2024, specifically concerning a Budget Committee Meeting Agenda and other matters, and to specify when these matters will be addressed by the Committee.
Basis for Order: The lot owner seeks clarity on when their correspondence will be considered, alleging a lack of clarity and responsiveness from the BC.

An order is sought declaring that the BC is in breach of the lot owner's rights with regard to a Circular dated 14 July 2023, due to non-compliance with BUGTA Schedule 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4, and directing the BC to remedy this breach.
Basis for Order: The lot owner asserts a breach of their rights concerning the Circular and seeks a remedy for this non-compliance.

An order is sought directing the BC to table motions regarding tree and hedge planting at the next Committee Meeting, as detailed in the lot owner's correspondence dated 05 November 2023, and to take action to restore the gardens area.
Basis for Order: The lot owner is seeking action to address the disrepair of the gardens area and proper maintenance of the red hedges.

An order is sought directing the BC to provide evidence and information to verify the accuracy of an insurance levy allocated to the lot, ensuring it has been fairly calculated in line with insurance guidelines.
Basis for Order: The lot owner disputes the fairness of the insurance levy and seeks transparency in its calculation.

An order is sought directing the BC to clarify in what capacity Cambridge Management Services (CMS) is acting concerning a notice regarding a Galvanised Steel Cage, and to address the lot owner's concerns about the notice's compliance with statutory requirements.
Basis for Order: The lot owner alleges ambiguity and potential breaches of BUGTA in the notice, seeking clarification and compliance.

An order is sought directing the BC to ensure that all notices and minutes are sent via postal mail, as per the lot owner's election under the Building Units and Group Titles Act.
Basis for Order: The lot owner has formally elected to receive notices and minutes via postal mail and seeks to enforce this preference.

An order is sought directing the BC to ensure compliance with BUGTA in the provision of minutes, as per the lot owner's instructions, and to clarify any discrepancies in the handling of minutes.
Basis for Order: The lot owner is seeking to ensure their rights under BUGTA are upheld concerning the receipt of minutes.

An order is sought directing the BC and PBC to maintain all back-to-base systems and their operation, as set out under BUGTA for the maintenance of common property, and to provide clarification on the testing and maintenance of these systems.
Basis for Order: The lot owner is seeking assurance that the BC and PBC are fulfilling their maintenance responsibilities for the back-to-base alarm systems.

An order is sought directing the BC to correct and reissue Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) Minutes from 11 August 2023, as requested by the lot owner.
Basis for Order: The lot owner has identified errors in the EGM minutes and seeks their correction.

An order is sought declaring that the notice of the PBC Annual General Meeting (AGM) was invalid due to not being received at least seven days prior to the meeting, and directing the BC to remedy the breach.
Basis for Order: The lot owner asserts that the notice period was insufficient, failing to account for postal delays and public holidays, and seeks rectification.

An order is sought directing the BC to properly consider and respond to correspondence from the lot owner in a timely and detailed manner, addressing the recurring issue of vague replies and lack of action.
Basis for Order: The lot owner highlights a pattern of inadequate responses and seeks a more diligent approach to addressing their concerns.

An order is sought that all Attachments listed within Section 2.1, not specifically identified above but not excluding the above, are tabled at an EAGM and/or Committee meeting and that the Respondents furnish written responses to each communicated and requested action within each. The order is to further seek that these actions are explicitly recorded in the relevant meeting agenda and minutes and not recorded as 'various correspondence'.
Basis for Order: The communications breaches and issues raised to the Respondents are of a critical and essential nature, are in line with the Applicant's rights and should not be ignored due to the failure by the Respondents to address them in a reasonable and timely manner.

Whether and how the committee must respond to Mr Clarke's correspondence

[2] Orders 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 14, 20 and 21 all seek to compel the body corporate committee to respond to Mr Clarke's frequent and voluminous correspondence. Mr Clarke refers to the powers and duties of the committee secretary at schedule 4 of the Act, which include "the answering of communications addressed to the body corporate".[1] He believes the secretary is obliged to not only respond to each of his letters, but to address each point he raises in detail.
[3] I am not persuaded that the committee is subject to any such obligation. The Act does not say the body corporate or its committee must reply to every item of correspondence it receives. The secretary has the power and duty to answer communications on behalf of the body corporate, but that only means that a reply received from the secretary might validly be regarded as a communication from the body corporate.
[4] I acknowledge that referees have not taken a unanimous position on that question though. Some have found that the body corporate has a duty to respond to correspondence,[2] others have said it depends upon the circumstances,[3] and others have found no such obligation.[4]
[5] No referee has ever accepted that the body corporate must provide a detailed response to every point Mr Clarke raises though. To the contrary, they have said:

The applicant says the secretary provided a brief, curt and inadequate response to his letter of 17 July 2013. He seeks an order to require the body corporate to provide a detailed response to this letter. This is a general management issue. There is no legal justification for this order.[5]

There is no legal obligation as to the content or timeframe for a response.[6]

While the applicant wants the body corporate to respond to the enquiries in the September letter, the body corporate's duty is to answer the communication. Whether this entails responding to every enquiry made in the letter is a matter for the body corporate...[7]

There is a duty on the Body Corporate to answer correspondence. However that does not necessarily impose an obligation to include in any answer all the information that an enquirer seeks, particularly if there is no statutory obligation to provide that information.[8]

There is no obligation as to the content or timeframe for a response...the Body Corporate is not obliged to respond within the timeframe demanded by the applicant, and does not have a statutory obligation to provide the specific information demanded by the applicant.[9]

While the applicant wants the body corporate to address his concerns, the body corporate's duty is to answer the correspondence. As I have said previously, "whether this entails responding to every enquiry made in the letter is a matter for the body corporate".[10]

There is nothing to suggest that in the circumstances, the committee had to specifically respond to each of the 26 items listed in the letter. ...There is no reason for the committee to give any further consideration to the letter.[11]

[6] The body corporate manager often sends Mr Clarke a short note to confirm receipt of each item of correspondence and advise that it will be passed on to the committee. That alone would satisfy those referees who have held that the body corporate must respond, but in the manner it chooses. Yet Mr Clarke again seeks orders to compel the body corporate to "provide individual responses to each issue or query", "provide clarification", "address the issues raised", "provide evidence and information", and so on. As he has been told repeatedly, he is not entitled to those orders.
[7] Mr Clarke refers to the committee's new obligation to act reasonably, introduced to the Act in 2022.[12] That requires the committee to take a rational approach in the circumstances. Mr Clarke writes to the committee a lot, generally raising multiple issues each time. They are often issues he has raised before. The parties are intractably at odds, with Mr Clarke lodging circa 40 adjudication applications against the body corporate since 2013. It is not irrational for the committee to look to minimise the time it spends on Mr Clarke's correspondence in these circumstances.

Order 2 - the Paradise Pest and Property letter

[8] This order relates to a letter from Paradise Pest and Property to Mr Clarke dated 1 November 2023 advising that the common property would be treated for pests on 17 November, but which Mr Clarke says did not arrive at his address in the United Kingdom until 25 November. Mr Clarke wrote to the committee to raise various concerns with the letter, including that his personal details had been shared with Paradise Pest and Property and that inadequate notice of the pest treatment was given.
[9] As just discussed, the committee is not required to "confirm" or "clarify" for Mr Clarke. The committee may not have known when the notice was sent, given it was sent by Paradise Pest and Property. There is no statutory timeframe for notice of a pest treatment of the common property anyway.
[10] Mr Clarke has not identified a breach of the Act with respect to the alleged sharing of his personal data.

[11] Mr Clarke wants a copy of the product disclosure statement and certificate of insurance for the body corporate's insurer. He refers to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.
[12] As Mr Clarke has previously been advised:
1. a referee has no jurisdiction with respect to alleged breaches of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984
2. the body corporate is under no obligation to provide copies of documents on request, and
3. Mr Clarke can inspect the body corporate's records if he pays the prescribed fee.[13]

Whether Mr Clarke's materials must be tabled etc

[13] At orders 5, 7, 8, 12, and 21 Mr Clarke asks that the committee is directed to table his correspondence, directives, or motions at committee meetings. There is no such obligation in the Act. Unlike community title schemes under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, proprietors have no right to submit motions for decision by the committee.[14]
[14] Order 21 further asks that the attachments listed at section 2.1 of Mr Clarke's application "are tabled at an EAGM and/or Committee meeting and ... explicitly recorded in the relevant meeting agenda and minutes and not recorded as 'various correspondence'." Section 2.1 only states the orders Mr Clarke seeks, as quoted above in paragraph 1. He may mean the table of attachments starting on page 18 within section 1.1 of the application. It lists and summarises 33 items of Mr Clarke's correspondence with the committee in 2023-25.
[15] There is no statutory obligation to "table" an owner's correspondence at a general meeting either, or to include it on the agenda. Mr Clarke can submit motions for inclusion on the agenda of a general meeting, not letters.[15]
[16] "Full and accurate minutes" must be kept of general and committee meetings, but there is nothing in the Act to suggest they should include a record of proprietors' correspondence.[16] The only guidance offered by the Act is that full and accurate minutes of a general meeting should "include particulars of motions passed by it at those meetings".[17]

Order 6 - whether the minutes of the 24 August 2023 committee meeting were provided late

[17] Since the 2022 amendments to the Act, proprietors must be given minutes of committee meetings within 21 days.[18] Mr Clarke submitted a copy of a circular sent with the minutes of the 24 August 2023 committee dated 27 September 2023. That was 34 days after the meeting was held, with further time to elapse before the notice could arrive by post. Mr Clarke said he received it at his address in the UK on 17 October.
[18] That was clearly a breach of the statutory timeframe. I will make the declaration sought.

[19] The circular of 14 July 2023 was the minutes of a committee meeting held on 28 June 2023. Mr Clarke seeks a declaration concerning "non-compliance with BUGTA Schedule 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4". The Act no longer has a schedule 1.
[20] Mr Clarke wrote to the committee about the circular. The heading of the relevant part of his letter referred to breaches of sections 38D and 45(4) of the Act. The former concerns the body corporate's obligations to keep records and convene meetings, the latter the committee's obligation to keep minutes. The text that followed disputed the accuracy of an item in the minutes.
[21] I am unclear precisely what contravention Mr Clarke is alleging. I cannot make a declaration about a breach of schedule 1 of the Act in any event.

[22] Mr Clarke seeks orders that all minutes and notices are provided by post, and the body corporate complies with the Act with respect to minutes.
[23] The body corporate does seem to send notices and minutes to Mr Clarke by post. He frequently complains that they are not sent early enough to ensure timely arrival in the UK.
[24] Mr Clarke claims that it is unlawful for the body corporate to write to proprietors and invite them to advise the body corporate if they would prefer not to receive minutes or notices, or if they would prefer to receive them by email. Yet sections 38D(5) and 45(6) of the Act allow proprietors to elect not to receive minutes. Section 127(3)(b) provides for service of documents by post, but section 11 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 allows written information to be given via electronic means with the consent of the recipient.
[25] Mr Clarke apparently believes that the body corporate is suggesting that proprietors may only receive notices or minutes by email, but that is not what the body corporate's correspondence indicates. The circular dated 9 June 2023 put it this way:

Owners receive Notice/Minutes of Committee Meetings and Voting Outside Committee Meetings via Australia Post mail and email to the address currently on the Body Corporate Roll. However, Owners now have the added choice as to whether they wish to receive these documents at all, or if they wish to receive them by email only.

[26] Opting out, or taking delivery by email, were offered as "added choices". There was no suggestion that proprietors could not continue to receive notices and minutes via post.
[27] I am not satisfied of a contravention requiring the requested orders. There would be no point stating that the body corporate must comply with the Act in any event. That is already a legal requirement.

Order 17 - maintenance of the "back to base" system

[28] The "back to base system" seems to involve electronic alarms in lots, including "red button, smoke detectors and the home security system", that can be monitored by "the Comverge System in the Eastern Gatehouse". Cambridge Management Services wrote to proprietors about it in a circular of 10 March 2023 on behalf of the principal body corporate, Royal Pines Resort. It said recent tests had found the line from the gatehouse to each residence was working, but the alarms in many lots were not. The circular said proprietors could correct those faults at their cost if they wished.
[29] Mr Clarke asks that I order the body corporate and principal body corporate to maintain the back to base system. But the principal body corporate is not a respondent, and Mr Clarke has not provided sufficient detail of the faults and their location to establish that they concerned common property as claimed.

Order 18 - correction of 11 August 2023 EGM minutes

[30] I cannot find an explanation of this order amongst the 562 pages of Mr Clarke's application. I cannot find a record of an EGM held on 11 August 2023.
[31] I cannot imagine how altering and republishing the minutes of a general meeting held more than two years ago would serve any useful purpose. Mr Clarke has not asked that anything substantive is done or not done by the body corporate as a result of the proposed changes to the minutes.

[32] I cannot see how the body corporate is responsible for a notice issued by the principal body corporate.

[33] Mr Clarke is entitled to his declaration that the notice of the 24 August 2023 committee meeting was sent late, but the remainder of the application is to be dismissed.
[34] The respondents argue the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance and they seek compensation for their losses resulting from the application.[19]
[35] To the extent that Mr Clarke sought to compel the committee to reply to his correspondence in detail, his application is misconceived and possibly vexatious. The committee is under no such obligation and Mr Clarke has been told that many times.
[36] Similar could be said about the attempt to use the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to compel the body corporate to provide Mr Clarke with copies of its insurer's product disclosure statement and certificate of insurance.
[37] Mr Clarke named Cambridge Management Services as a respondent despite seeking no orders against it, needlessly putting it to the trouble and expense of responding. That was misconceived and possibly vexatious.
[38] He also sought orders against the principal body corporate despite it not being a respondent, which was similarly misconceived.
[39] The application with respect to orders 11, 17 and 18 lacked substance.
[40] I find the bulk of the application to be misconceived, vexatious, or lacking substance. It ran to 562 pages, condemning the respondents to devote significant time and resources to it.
[41] I have invited the respondents to submit evidence of their claimed losses resulting from the application. Mr Clarke will be given the opportunity to respond to those submissions. A further determination will then be made with respect to costs.