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

This application for interim orders is hereby dismissed.

• [1] The scheme, Booval Court CTS 4614, contains 15 lots and common property. It is regulated under the Act and Standard Module.
• [2] The lots are contained within two multi-storey buildings and four single-storey buildings. One of the two multi-storey buildings houses parts of Lots 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15.
• [3] Lot 13 sits above Lot 8, which in turn sits above Lot 3.
• [4] The scheme has been created under a building format plan of subdivision.

• [5] There are three persons relevant to this dispute, as follows:
  1. The owner of Lot 13, Karla Scott, who is the applicant;
  2. The Body Corporate for Booval Court, i.e., the first respondent;
  3. The owner of Lot 8, Laura Keen, who is the second respondent.
• [6] This dispute concerns the reinstallation of a 50 litre hot water system that is located in the ceiling cavity above the applicant's lot.
• [7] The applicant states that three hot water systems that individually service certain lots including Lots 3 and 8, are located in the common property cavity above the ceiling of Lot 13.
• [8] Further, this cavity can seemingly be accessed by a hatch in the ceiling of Lot 13 and alternatively a common property manhole. However, the latter is not as wide as the former.
• [9] The applicant complains that these hot water systems have caused repeated water ingress into her lot as follows:
  1. In January 2025, a minor leak from one of the hot water systems;
  2. In June 2025, a leak causing damage to her lot;
  3. On 2 August 2025, a major failure of the hot water system servicing Lot 8, resulting in water pouring through her bedroom ceiling, saturating her carpet, mattress, bedding, walls and other contents, and destroying her smoke alarm, television, ceiling fan and light.
• [10] She states that the body corporate's insurer has not yet proceeded with remedying the damage to her lot because it had not paid the insurance excess until late October.
• [11] She adds that there were numerous conversations regarding a possible relocation of the hot water systems to a space that does not risk water ingress into her lot. She states that quotations were also obtained to this effect. However, she indicates that the body corporate failed to progress the matter.
• [12] She complains that her ceiling and smoke alarm have still not been repaired by the body corporate among other things, despite her allowing twelve separate trade visits into her lot. She refuses to allow any further trades visits commissioned by the body corporate or the second respondent until her ceiling is repaired.
• [13] The applicant states that she formally requested records of annual hot water system inspections (as required under a resolution at the 2020 Annual General Meeting), and discovered that the records for the years 2021 and 2024 were missing entirely, and that those for 2022 and 2023 were incomplete.
• [14] She states that the hot water systems servicing Lots 3 and 8 are now at end-of-life.
• [15] The applicant adds that the owners of Lot 3 have agreed to relocate their hot water system elsewhere. However, the owner of Lot 8 - which has been without hot water since August 2025 and hence is untenantable - wishes to have the hot water system urgently replaced in its original location. The owner of Lot 8 is however agreeable to considering relocation options in the future.
• [16] The applicant complains that a quotation has been circulated for the replacement of the existing 50 litre hot water system servicing Lot 8, with a larger 125 litre one that requires the manhole or hatch to also be enlarged.
• [17] The replacement works are scheduled to commence on 28 November 2025.
• [18] The applicant primarily seeks orders to prevent the replacement of this hot water system on the basis of safety, structural and risk mitigation grounds following repeated water ingress into her lot and other lots[1]; considering the lack of evidence of annual inspections; and considering the risk of cylindrical failure (and consequential water ingress) as the hot water systems age. She states that there is also limited access to the ceiling cavity.

• [19] The applicant seeks the following final orders (to be determined at a later stage):
  1. That the body corporate approve and co-ordinate relocation of the hot water cylinders servicing Lot 8 to external positions on common property, rather than reinstalling them in the ceiling cavity above Lot 13;
  2. That the body corporate prohibit any enlargement, alteration or modification of the ceiling manhole within Lot 13 for the purpose of installing or accessing any other lot's hot water system;
  3. That the owner of Lot 8 must not reinstall or replace their hot water cylinders within the ceiling cavity above Lot 13 and must instead install them externally or in another safe location approved by the body corporate;
  4. That the body corporate develop and implement a maintenance and inspection schedule requiring all hot water cylinders located in roof cavities to be inspected annually and that written inspection reports be provided to the committee and affected lot owners.
• [20] The applicant seeks an interim order (which is the subject of this decision) as follows:
  1. That the body corporate and the owner of Lot 8 must not reinstall, replace or install any hot water system within the ceiling cavity above Lot 13, pending the outcome of the final orders.

• [21] 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 the CMS[2] or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[3] Further, an order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting in a manner stated.[4] An order may also contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate. [5]
• [22] I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to determine the dispute in question by virtue of sections 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act (read together with section 227(1)(b) of the Act).

• [23] This application for interim orders was lodged on 6 November 2025.
• [24] On the same day, the Commissioner's delegate sought further information from the applicant under section 240 of the Act.
• [25] On 11 November 2025, the applicant provided the information so sought.
• [26] On 12 November 2025, the application was referred to department adjudication under section 247 of the Act.
• [27] On 12 and 13 November 2025, I instructed my delegate to contact the body corporate to ascertain whether the works had been scheduled. I was informed that the same was scheduled to commence on 28 November 2025.
• [28] Subsequently, I invited the committee (on behalf of the body corporate) and the second respondent to make a submission in response to the application for interim orders.
• [29] Both parties made submissions.
• [30] I have investigated the dispute in terms of section 271 of the Act by reviewing the application and submissions.

• [31] An adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[6] Accordingly, an applicant must satisfy the adjudicator that serious or irreparable damage would be caused without the interim order.
• [32] An interim order has effect for a period stated in the order, not to be longer than one year, and may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made, and otherwise lapses when an application is finally determined or withdrawn.[7]
• [33] An interim order is usually made in the form of a temporary injunction - an order not to do something, pending a final determination of an application.
• [34] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interlocutory injunction applications.[8] The first issue is whether the applicant has made out a 'prima facie case' or raised a 'serious legal question', in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is some probability that the applicant will succeed at the final determination stage. The second issue is whether any inconvenience or injury which the applicant would be likely to suffer if an interim order were refused outweighs or is outweighed by any inconvenience or injury which the respondent would suffer if an interim order were granted. Those two issues of serious legal question and balance of convenience are parts of one ultimate question - whether an interim order is warranted - and therefore should not be addressed mechanically or in isolation from one another.
• [35] The questions of law and fact raised by the application do not need to be finally decided at the interim order determination stage, and doing so is not appropriate where the evidence is potentially incomplete, or questions of law require opposing arguments and unhurried consideration. That said, if the answer to a question of fact or law is clear on the evidence and issues as presented in the interim application, it may be appropriate and beneficial to decide such questions at the interlocutory stage.[9]
• [36] Even if the considerations of urgency or balance of convenience favour the applicant, it is not inappropriate for an interim order application to be dismissed if there is little or no prospect of success on the legal arguments and the uncontroversial facts, at the final determination stage.
• [37] Ordinarily, an interim injunction should do no more than maintain the status quo for a limited time or until the determination of the main application, usually in the form of a restraining injunction. An interim order in the form of a mandatory injunction, i.e., an order requiring a respondent to do something (as opposed to a restraint) which is not needed to preserve an existing interest of the applicant and which imposes a non-compensable burden or loss on the respondent is a special case. It is rarely made by courts and calls for particularly careful consideration, with the effect that the balance of convenience is shifted in the respondent's favour (all other things being equal).[10]

• [38] Accordingly, the only question before me for determination is whether an interim order is warranted. However, before I address that question I would like to point out an area of the application that requires clarity in the event this dispute progresses to adjudication for determination of the final orders sought.

• [39] Two parties here have suffered considerably. On the one hand, the applicant has had significant water ingress into her lot and sustained damage to her property. She has been promised remedy through the body corporate's insurance cover, but months later is still without a working smoke alarm and has a damaged ceiling (among other things). She has missed work attending to these matters. On the other hand, the second respondent, with the absence of a hot water utility service, is left with an untenantable lot, foregoing substantial rental income.
• [40] At this stage neither of the three parties involved have clearly and expressly identified whether it is the body corporate or the second respondent that is responsible under the legislation for the specific hot water system or utility infrastructure in question.
• [41] Section 180(4)(a) of the Standard Module states as follows:

The owner of the lot is responsible for maintaining, in good order and condition, utility infrastructure, including utility infrastructure situated on common property to the extent the utility infrastructure -

(i) relates only to supplying utility services to the owner's lot; and

(ii) is 1 of the following types -

• (A) hot-water systems;

• (B) washing machines;

• (C) clothes dryers;

• (D) solar panels;

• (E) air-conditioning systems;

• (F) television antennae;

• (G) another device providing a utility service to a lot;

...

• [42] The applicant seemingly describes the hot water systems in the ceiling cavity as separate systems servicing individual lots. There are photographs provided in the second respondent's submission that appear to support this statement.
• [43] The body corporate does not address this factor in its submission but appears to have undertaken an obligation in 2020 to conduct annual inspections of all the hot water systems (or the centralised hot water system however it may be described) on scheme land. This may likely have been the most sensible course of action even if individual lot owners are responsible for the hot water systems servicing their lots.
• [44] Certain correspondence issued by the body corporate suggests that it is of the view that individual lot owners are responsible for the maintenance of hot water systems, once again suggesting that there may be separate hot water systems servicing individual lots.
• [45] Further, it appears to be the second respondent who will be meeting the cost of replacing the hot water system servicing her lot. This once again suggests that there are separate hot water systems servicing individual lots, that individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining.
• [46] Moreover, the fact that only Lot 8 is impacted by the issue with the hot water system also suggests that it is an individual system servicing Lot 8.
• [47] I have not been provided with a layout or plan of the hot water systems(s) at the scheme.
• [48] However, I note that on 16 September 2020, a plumber reported as follows:

Attend site and inspect.carry out hot water system inspection works for the complex. > > Note: access to these were found to be difficult, with the heaters for all units located within the ceiling space of both buildings. Access via the common area hatches, as directed, did not provide access to these heaters, and featured a lock on each latch. > > However, after crawling through the ceiling void from the common stairwell hatch, to about a distance of 10-12m, access to the heaters was possible in the front building (units 1, 6, 11, 2, 7, 12). 3 heaters situated at each end of the ceiling space, service the units, with all cold water supply and hot water delivery pipework seen to run separately to each unit via the adjacent riser. These heaters are mounted on a timber frame in separate safe trays and share common drainage pipework. > > ... > > Inspection of these heaters saw the following: > > Unit 1, 6, 12: > > Unit 1: tempering valve features flexibles hoses on the unions. These are considered to be at risk of failing unexpectedly, and should be replaced. See photos > > Unit 6: leaking PTR and nylon olive fitting. > > Unit 12: water seem in the tray. Suspected leaking cylinder..2001 model (19 years old) > > Units 2, 7, 11: no signs of any issues, leakage, etc. > > The main building, incorporating all of the other units, was suspected to have also featured the same layout, and after requesting access to units 13, 14 and 15, access to unit 13 was the only unit available. Access via the hatch located in the hallway revealed heater for units 13, 8 and 3. All appeared to be in good operating condition, with no leaks, etc. However access to any other heaters was not available from this location, and would require access to both units 14 and 15. > > ... > > [emphasis added in bold and underline]

• [49] It is unclear whether three hot water systems service the six lots in the 'front building', or of three hot water systems service three lots individually. Similarly, the layout for the 'main building' is unclear.
• [50] Accordingly, I would urge the body corporate (and the parties) to ascertain whether it is responsible for the maintenance of the entire hot water system or whether there exists separate hot water systems servicing each lot separately that lot owners are responsible for maintaining. This is crucial when determining the fourth final order sought by the application.
• [51] I would also like to remind the body corporate and its members that the maintenance of common property and certain utility infrastructure under the legislation is one that attracts strict liability.[11]
• [52] Accordingly, the parties responsible for maintenance cannot and must not wait for a malfunction to attend to repairs, but must also take preventative measures to ensure that there not be a malfunction.
• [53] In the event of a failure to fulfill this obligation, and consequential damage to the applicant's property, section 281 of the Act allows an adjudicator to order the responsible person to carry out repairs up to a sum of $75,000.00 or to pay the applicant up to a sum of $10,000.00 as reimbursement for repairs to the applicant's property.

• [54] I am satisfied that given the works are to commence on 28 November 2025 that there is an element of urgency.

3.3 Prima facie case and balance of convenience

• [55] The applicant provides the following reasons for seeking the interim order:
  1. She will be faced with a foreseeable and serious risk of water damage;
  2. Her lot remains unrepaired from the last water ingress event;
  3. A further leak will cause serious and irreversible damage to her lot, and potentially delay or invalidate ongoing repairs by the insurance company; and
  4. If the hot water system is replaced, it cannot be undone, and shall render the final order sought meaningless.
• [56] The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that locating the hot water system in the ceiling cavity is inherently unreasonable or unlawful.
• [57] Rather the evidence provided indicates that it is the failure to maintain the utility infrastructure in question on the part of either the body corporate or individual lot owners, that has resulted in water ingress to her lot.
• [58] Water ingress should not and shall not be foreseeable in this regard if the statutory maintenance obligations are fulfilled as envisaged under the legislation.
• [59] I reiterate that in the event of a failure to fulfill this obligation, and consequential damage to the applicant's property, section 281 of the Act enables an adjudicator to provide the applicant relief.
• [60] Furthermore, given the maintenance obligations under the legislation attract strict liability, and given the knowledge that a failure to fulfill the same may well result in damage to the applicant's lot, the standard of care or conduct in so maintaining the utility infrastructure may involve a degree of diligence so stringent as to amount practically to a guarantee of safety.
• [61] In other words, the body corporate or the second respondent (whichever party is responsible for the maintenance of the hot water system or utility infrastructure in question) in carrying out these replacement works in the original location (the ceiling cavity) has a greater standard of care to observe in maintaining it, than it would if it were for example, located in the ground floor.
• [62] Accordingly, whilst in these circumstances I am unable to order the respondents to refrain from carrying out these works until the determination of final orders, I would like to draw its attention to the strict nature of the maintenance obligations under the legislation.
• [63] I note that quotation dated 26 August 2025 by Don Evans Plumbers Pty Ltd provides for two options, one being a 125 litre hot water unit to replace that of Lot 8, requiring a carpenter to 'cut in manhole for installation'. The second respondent advises that she did not obtain this quotation. Further, the evidence (the notice of entry) indicates that the quotation she intends to proceed with is by another business.
• [64] Accordingly, the applicant's concern regarding an alteration to her lot, i.e., enlarging the hatch in her ceiling is not supported by recent evidence. Regardless, I declare that the body corporate and the second respondent cannot make such an alteration to the applicant's lot without her consent.
• [65] While I sympathise with the applicant given the damage to her property, I am not satisfied that she has demonstrated a prima facie case. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the balance of convenience favours the preservation of the status quo.
• [66] I must therefore dismiss this application for interim orders.

[1] With the hot water system servicing Lot 4 leaking into Lot 14 in 2022

[2] The CMS includes the scheme's by-laws

[3] Sections 276)(1)(a) and (b) of the Act

[5] See Brighton on Broadwater Breezes [2018] QBCCMCmr 243 at [8]

[8] For general principles see for e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[9] Cohen v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 70 at [6]

[10] Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (J.D. Heydon, M.J. Leeming, P.G. Turner) (Fourth Edition) (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002) at [21-395]; Bingham & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores P/L [2003] QCA 402 at [106]-[108]

[11] I discussed the nature of this liability in detail recently in Shanara [2025] QBCCMCmr 227