//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/72
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-03-10
Original judgment source is linked above.
Bila Vista [2026] QBCCMCmr 72
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)
Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)
INTERIM ORDER - whether an order stopping the body corporate from engaging a contractor for pool refurbishment works is justified.
[1] The applicant is a lot owner who has sought interim orders against the body corporate.
[2] The final orders the applicant seeks, which are not being determined at this time, challenge:
[3] The interim orders sought, which are being determined at this time, would have the effect of stopping the body corporate from engaging a contractor for the refurbishment of the common property pool area, until the dispute is finally determined.
[4] I have made the interim orders sought, as, on my preliminary review:
[5] For the avoidance of any doubt, this interim order does not stop the body corporate from calling another general meeting and making further proposals about a refurbishment of the pool area.
[6] The scheme is a building format plan of subdivision of 42 lots and common property. The community management statement shows the Accommodation Module applies.
[7] The final orders sought, which are not being determined at this time, read as follows:
1. In relation to the 20 January 2026 EGM, that Motion Group 1 - Pool Refurbishment (Item 3.2 [contractor name]) passed at the EGM
a. is judged as void for not providing a proper quotation and failure to comply with sections 163(1-3) of the BCCM (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020.
b. That the Body Corporate must not enter into any contract or incur expenditure for pool refurbishment works pursuant to that motion.
2. That the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Bilavista Body Corporate held on 22 May 2025
a. be declared void and of no effect, on the basis that it was not legally convened, there being no prior resolution of the Committee to call the meeting, contrary to section 72(1) of the BCCM (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020.
b. that the three motions (palm party lights, Bilavista sign, polycarbonate awnings) purportedly passed at that meeting be set aside and placed before the Committee for proper consideration and ratification at the next duly convened Committee meeting in accordance with the Act and Regulation.
3. That the Bilavista Body Corporate Committee, supported by the Bilavista Property Manager and the Strata Manager, Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd, has poorly administered the Body Corporate strictly in accordance with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, BCCM (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020, CMS/Bilavista Bylaws, specifically:
a. They have failed to act reasonably on behalf of ALL lot owners (S 94 BCCM Act 1997)
b. They did not to provide body corporate documents, when an appropriate application and payment was submitted (S205, BCCM Act 1997) exposing the Body Corporate to a possible fine.
c. They are not complying with Accommodation Module requirements for committee meetings and general meetings including making binding decisions at Committee and General Meetings and providing explanatory material accompanying voting papers (BCCM Accommodation Module Regulation 2020 S80)
d. They are not providing proper oversight of the strata manager's contract to ensure the strata manager discharges their responsibility in accordance with the Bilavista Strata Management contract, BCCM Act 1997, Accommodation Module Regulation 2020 and Bilavista CMS/By Laws.
4. That the Bilavista Body Corporate Committee, supported by the Bilavista Property Manager and the Strata Manager, Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd, must administer the Body Corporate strictly in accordance with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, BCCM (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020, CMS/Bilavista Bylaws.
5. Such further orders as the Adjudicator considers appropriate.
[8] The interim orders sought, which are being determined at this time, read as follows:
That the Body Corporate Committee puts a temporary stop and does not proceed with engaging [the contractor] for the resurfacing of the pool.
[9] Interim orders may be made without submissions from the respondent. However, in the interests of natural justice, I invited the body corporate committee to provide submissions in relation to the interim application as the committee provided an undertaking that the disputed motion would not be acted upon until the interim application had been decided.
[10] Interim orders are temporary measures put in place to maintain the status quo until a final decision can be made. The main purpose is to preserve a party's rights or interest, usually by preventing a party from taking certain actions.
[11] The ability for an adjudicator to issue an interim order is provided for in the legislation. An adjudicator can make such an order where satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the order is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1] Adjudicators often follow the test applied by courts in interlocutory applications. The test requires the adjudicator to be satisfied of two key points:
[12] While I am not determining the final orders sought, determining whether there is a genuine legal issue at the interim stage requires some consideration of them.
[13] It is the applicant's responsibility to show there is a prima facie case to justify the relief they seek. This does not mean the applicant needs to prove that they are more likely than not to succeed in obtaining final orders. Instead, this means they must show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the interim orders pending a final determination of the matter.[3] How strong the possibility of success that is needed depends upon the nature of the rights the applicant asserts, and the consequences of the order sought.[4]
[14] The first final order is the most relevant to the interim relief sought. Its effect would be to void the motion that proposed the engagement of a contractor for the pool refurbishment.
[15] The motion subject of dispute reads as follows:
That the Body Corporate approves the quotation from [the contractor] to undertake the Pool Refurbishment work in accordance with the quotation / scope of works / specifications attached to the notice of this meeting at a cost of $94,325.00 including GST;
AND FURTHER that the Body Corporate authorises, in addition to the total quotation, a twenty (20) percent contingency from the Sinking Fund, in the amount of $18,865.00 including GST to allow for any unforeseen works to be completed;
AND FURTHER that the Committee be authorised to enter into contracts on terms satisfactory to the Committee with the accepted contractor/s for the works, together with such other contracts on terms satisfactory to the committee with such other parties as may be required to give effect to the proposal, and that any two committee members be authorised to sign under seal any such documentation;
AND FURTHER that the Body Corporate confirms that all costs associated with this project is to be funded from the Sinking Fund. (Disputed Motion)
[16] The Disputed Motion formed part of a group of same issue motion. It seems the proposed costs went beyond the relevant limit for major spending at the scheme.[5] Where this happens, pursuant to section 163 of the Accommodation Module, the owners should be given copies of at least 2 quotations for carrying out the works. The two quotes should then be proposed as motions listed as a group of same issue motion on the agenda and voting papers for the meeting.[6] There is a way voting is calculated where only one of those motions out of the group may resolve to pass.[7]
[17] There was a second quote and motion related to pool refurbishment, and so the Disputed Motion and this motion were listed as a group of same issue motion.
[18] The Disputed Motion was the qualifying motion by special resolution. There is no explanation as to why a special resolution was deemed appropriate, but it can be required if the proposal is not for maintenance of common property, but rather for an improvement to common property, and where the cost of the proposed improvement is over the scheme's ordinary resolution improvement range.[8]
[19] The applicant raises several arguments against the Disputed Motion. At this interim stage, I will only discuss the most relevant, being that the applicant suggests the proposal is too vague. As a result, the applicant impliedly argues that the body corporate could not have acted reasonably in its decision. The applicant also argues that the document cannot be considered a quote, and therefore, the body corporate has not complied with the legislative requirements for two quotes where the proposed spending is above the relevant limit for major spending.
[20] The body corporate disagrees and says the motion proposed a valid quote, complying with all legislative requirements. Notably, the body corporate's interim submissions do not provide adequate insight into what it believes the motion authorises the committee to do.
[21] On my preliminary review of the materials in front of me, I am currently satisfied the applicant has raised a serious legal question around whether lot owners were adequately informed of the meaning and effect of the motion, and whether the body corporate has acted reasonably in its decision. This is because it is not immediately clear what the meaning and effect of the motion is.
[22] In equity, the committee has a fiduciary duty to provide material that is substantially full and true in relation to a vote at a general meeting.[9] This means the committee should give owners proper notice of the subject which it proposes to be done.[10] Although, it is also possible for owners to have sufficient background knowledge of the situation to make an informed decision, and there can be no criticism of the committee if that is the case.[11]
[24] It is difficult to say that owners were given proper notice, and therefore that the body corporate acted reasonably in the decision making process, when it is apparent that the design and scope of works (and to some extent cost) is largely unknown.
[25] The approved quote makes statements such as "it is a ball park figure as to what is required as there are a lot of unknowns with what the Body Corporate would like" and "As a very rough costings perhaps allow approx...". The design and finish unknown, with the document stating that pebblecrete might be difficult, and makes a suggestion about fibreglass, but it is not definitive.
[26] To be clear, I do not suggest that there has been any fault by the contractor. It simply appears that there is no certainty on the desired design, which impacts the scope, and therefore cost.
[27] It is possible to argue that the relevant limit for committee spending on a particular project could be increased to a "ballpark figure", to allow the committee to have scope to manage the project and make relevant intermediate decisions, and I acknowledge that this may have been the intention behind the Disputed Motion.
[28] However, the lack of clarity regarding the design poses a challenge for several reasons. Changes to the design and finish could impact whether the work constitutes maintenance of common property or an improvement to it.[14] The committee does not have the authority to approve improvements to common property if the cost exceeds the basic improvements limit, even if the expenditure falls within the relevant limit for committee spending.[15] While the motion was presented as a special resolution, which could suggest that an improvement (as opposed to maintenance) of the pool was approved, it is difficult to conclude that owners were adequately informed of any proposed improvement. Without clarity on whether the design and finish of the pool are being altered, it is unlikely that owners could properly consider the relevant factors, in order to act reasonably in making the decision, or to otherwise approve an improvement to the area, if that is the committee's intention.
[29] Ultimately, what the committee plans to do from here with the pool is unclear at this point, and what it believes this motion authorises the committee to do is also unclear. Clarity around design and finish (and subsequently cost) would be desirable, if the committee wants to take further proposals to a general meeting.
[30] The applicant has raised other arguments in relation to this final order. It is not necessary for me to consider those arguments further, at this interim stage.
[31] The second final order has little direct relevance to the interim relief sought. The order seeks to void an extraordinary general meeting held in May 2025 (and its resolutions). It is now March 2026.
[32] Where an application seeks to void a meeting or a resolution, the application must be made within 3 months unless I am satisfied there is good reason to waive the non-compliance.[16] Based on a quick review of the material currently in front of me, I am not currently satisfied that there is good reason to waive this requirement.
3.1.3. Prima facie case - third and fourth final orders
[33] I am not currently satisfied there is a prima facie case for the third and fourth final orders. Those orders are directed at the committee itself,[17] and the scheme's body corporate manager, who are not respondents to the application. This raises a natural justice issue and is not appropriate. Further, the applicant does not have standing to bring disputes against those persons.[18]
[34] I am currently satisfied that there is a prima facie case in relation to the validity of the decision to resolve the Disputed Motion.
[35] Though, before granting an interim order, I must balance the inconvenience to the respondent body corporate if I were to grant the interim relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be refused, against the inconvenience to the applicant if I were to not grant relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be granted.[19]
[36] I am satisfied the balance justifies the interim order because, if the body corporate does act on the motion and engage the contractor, the body corporate will be bound to a contractual arrangement that may not be easily undone, or if undone, may leave the body corporate open to further litigation for breach of contract.
[37] On the other hand, the making of the interim order does not stop the body corporate from calling a further meeting to propose motions that are clearer in their meaning, intentions and costs.
[38] At this preliminary stage, I am currently satisfied that an interim order is justified.
[39] I am currently satisfied there is a prima face case for the first final order, on the basis that lot owners may not have been properly informed, and/or the body corporate may have acted unreasonably in its decision, where the design and scope of the works to the pool area is unclear.
[40] I am satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the interim order, where the body corporate would be bound to a contract with a third party if it acts on the potentially defective resolution.
[41] I will word the interim orders in a way that stops the body corporate from acting on the potentially defective resolution. However, the order will not stop the body corporate from making further decisions around refurbishment of the pool area.
[2] SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 at [21].
[3] Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [622-623].
[4] Australian Broadcasting Corp v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, at [65], [19].
[5] Relevant limit for major spending is defined in Accommodation Module, Sch 1.
[9] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [56].
[10] Ryan v Edna May Junction Gold Mining Company [1916] HCA 37; (1916) 21 CLR 487.
[11] See Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland and Anor [2021] QCATA 119 at [44]; Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [26].
[13] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [42].
[14] For a discussion on this issue, see Sojourn [2021] QBCCMCmr 334.
[15] Accommodation Module, s 176. There is a helpful table on these limits on the following website: https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/maintenance/improvements
[17] For discussion on whether the committee can be considered a legal person, see Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297 [47-59]
[19] Au_stralian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill_ [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] citing Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [5].
(1968) 118 CLR 618
(2006) 227 CLR 57
(1916) 21 CLR 487