Bower Lodge [2026] QBCCMCmr 1 (6 January 2026)

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

BY-LAWS - whether the volume and nature of communications from the respondent breach the by-laws.

Act, s 59

1. The respondent, Donna Mroz Turcic, must ensure her communication with the body corporate (including its committee and agents), and other owners and occupiers is reasonable and not an annoyance, a nuisance, threatening or intimidating, defamatory, or anti-social.
2. If the respondent, Donna Mroz Turcic, wishes to communicate in writing with the body corporate, the committee, any committee member, or any agent of the body corporate, that written communication should:
   1. be sent only to the email address, as advised from time to time, of the body corporate secretary
   2. comprise a maximum of 1 email per week, unless the body corporate expressly invites additional written communications, and
   3. comprise a maximum of 1,000 words for each communication.
3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about the respondent's communications with the body corporate.
• [2] The body corporate says the respondent, the owner of Lot 22, sends lengthy, nuisance, accusatory, intimidating, harassing and repetitive emails, often numerous times a week, to committee members. It says this has occurred since 2009 and that it received over 200 lengthy emails 2024 and 2025. It provides a sample of the emails. It says the respondent does not acknowledge that the issues raised have already been dealt with. It discusses impact the communications have on its members.
• [3] The body corporate says the respondent's communications breach By-law 13 about communications and By-law 26 about interfering with contractors and employees. It says that on numerous occasions it has asked the respondent to cease her conduct, and it issued by-law contravention notices to her. But it says the lengthy, accusatory emails continue.
• [4] The applicant seeks orders regulating the respondent's communications. The question then is whether the respondent has breached the by-laws and, if so, what orders are warranted.

• [5] Bower Lodge community titles scheme 17921 (Bower Lodge) is a 27-lot scheme in Southport. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 100919.
• [6] The application seeks the following order:

An order that ceases the volume, content and amount of nuisance emails by the Respondent. As such the Body Corporate requests of the Respondent that: > > * Communications must be in writing only. > > * Written communications shall only be sent by email to the Secretary of the Body Corporate. > > * A maximum of one piece of written communication may be sent per week (only to the Secretary of the Body Corporate), unless the Body Corporate expressly invites additional written communications. > > * Any item of written communication shall be limited to a maximum of 2 pages in length containing a maximum of 1,000 words. > > * Written communication should be courteous and not abusive or offensive.

• [7] 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, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions. [2]

• [8] The body corporate initially applied for conciliation in April 2025.[3] The parties participated in conciliation in June but were unfortunately not able to reach a signed agreement.
• [9] This application was lodged on 6 August, pursuant to an apparent vote outside a committee meeting decided on 27 June.
• [10] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[4] The application was subsequently amended.[5]
• [11] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[6] The respondent and the owners of 4 other lots made submissions. The body corporate did not avail itself of the opportunity to obtain and respond to the submissions.[7]
• [12] The application was referred to department adjudication.[8] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions.[9]
• [13] The submitted material comments on the conciliation proceedings. But evidence of anything said or done about a dispute in a conciliation session is inadmissible in a proceeding.[10] Accordingly, I have not had regard to those comments.

• [14] The respondent's submissions on this application comprised 18 separate emails including some 124 pages of content. I found much of the submissions convoluted, digressive, repetitive, and generally difficult to follow. The respondent challenges many statements in the application, and refers to numerous issues of concern, but in my view largely fails to respond to the substantive legal issue raised by the application. Most relevantly, as best as I can ascertain, the respondent says:
  1. She does not understand the point of the application.
  2. She feels wrongly and maliciously targeted and betrayed by the committee.
  3. She was breached 3 times for writing correspondence related to her body corporate.
  4. Others have not been breached or taken to adjudication despite the 'numerous valid points' which she has 'presented time and time again' in her correspondence.
  5. She seeks an explanation of the alleged favouritism.
  6. She acknowledges writing lengthy correspondence but says it was factual and there has been much to cover regarding her home and investment.
  7. She has received few 'full, honest, and fair' answers in return. She asks that the committee provide answers as part of the application.
  8. She questions the voting to approve the application.
  9. She denies declining opportunities to discuss her issues.
  10. She has submitted general meeting motions, but they were ruled out of order.
  11. She alleges that she has been repeatedly intimidated.
  12. If the body corporate answered her questions as they arose, she would not need to spend hours and hours of her time re-writing what she has written time and again.
  13. She objects to the committee - who are meant to represent her - banding together against her. She says any owner who tries to understand the legislation and legal agreements should be appreciated and not scorned or denigrated.
  14. The disparaging blanket descriptions of her correspondence are libelous.
  15. The application does not provide specific facts.
• [15] The submissions include supporting documentation that the respondent says she hopes are self-explanatory when read together with her submission. The material appears to relate to several issues the respondent has concern about. But unfortunately, I have struggled to identify or understand the relevance of this documentation to the legal issues in this application or the orders sought by the body corporate.
• [16] Three submissions support the application.
  1. One submitter says they were given committee approval to remove 3 awnings at their own cost and the respondent has questioned the matter repeatedly for over 8 years despite it being clearly explained. They feel harassed by the repeated enquiries. They say the respondent writes frequently with lengthy, repetitive, negative letters and reading them is draining. They say the respondent rarely contributes constructively, stirs dissention, and makes unfounded accusations. The submitter says the accusations make them uncomfortable and create a negative atmosphere.
  2. Another owner says they are personally affronted by the constant and rambling emails. They object to the aspersions cast on the committee.
  3. The caretakers say the respondent's anti-social behaviour has a serious and lasting impact on them. They say the volume, tone, and nature of the communications over a long period have felt adversarial and repetitive, and they are personally targeted. They say it is confrontational and accusatory rather than offering solutions or constructive feedback. They say the relentless pressure has taken a toll and their workplace feels hostile and unsafe. They object to unsubstantiated accusations that damage their reputation and devalue their investment. They seek to be treated with fairness and respect, with concerns addressed through proper processes.
• [17] One owner says the respondent has always been interested in body corporate matters and has a comprehensive knowledge of the rules and regulations. They say the respondent has shown strict adherence to the rules, which has created conflict with committee members and caretakers who act outside the rules. They say the respondent has written many letters, which are admittedly sometimes very long. But the submitter believes the letters are well-researched, to the point, business-like, and not aggressive.

• [18] The issue in this application is whether the respondent's communication with the body corporate breaches the by-laws, and whether orders should be made to address that. In deciding this application, I will first note the body corporate's obligations regarding owner communications, then consider the relevant by-laws and the evidence of the respondent's communications. I will finally consider whether the orders sought are warranted.
• [19] Importantly, it is beyond the scope of my role in determining this application to consider the substance of any particular issues of concern to the respondent. This dispute is not about whether the respondent has genuine or substantiated concerns (and I do not comment on whether she does), but how she communicates with the body corporate. If the respondent disputes the decisions or actions of the body corporate or any individual and can establish a contravention of the legislation or by-laws, she may have scope to those matters separately. However, I note the adjudication process has limited capacity to resolve interpersonal conflict, which seems evident here.

• [20] Subject to their obligations under the by-laws, and perhaps the constraints of body corporate resolutions, there is no reason why owners and occupiers cannot communicate directly with the body corporate, its committee, committee members, and the body corporate's agents. But that does not of itself engender a right to a response.
• [21] The body corporate has a statutory obligation to act reasonably in undertaking its general functions.[11] But beyond that, the legislation does not dictate if, how, or when a body corporate responds to correspondence it receives. What is required by the obligation to act reasonably when managing owner communications can depend on the circumstances.

• [22] In a previous dispute about contentious owner correspondence, an adjudicator said:[12]

... I note that the body corporate has significant discretion as to how it handles the respondent's correspondence. For example, the legislation does not place any general obligation upon the body corporate to read owners' correspondence, or reply to it, or table it at committee meetings, or follow any directions that owners might attempt to give the committee or its members. Some skimming of correspondence will be required to ensure that it does not raise a matter that does engage one of the body corporate's statutory obligations, such as a request for body corporate records pursuant to section 205 of the Act. Beyond that, the applicant will generally be at liberty to simply store the correspondence in the body corporate records and take no further action.

• [23] While owners and occupiers may be entitled to communicate, that right does not have to be unfettered. Volunteer committee members do not have to be subjected to a constant barrage of correspondence. And responding to nuisance correspondence may cause an unreasonable drain on the body corporate's resources. Adjudicators have consistently accepted that, acting reasonably, bodies corporate can place controls on incoming communications such as the content and who they are directed to.[13]

• [24] The CMS for Bower Lodge includes the following by-laws referred to by the body corporate:[14]
  1. Communications

13.1 Owners and Occupiers must only communicate and interact with the Body Corporate and other Owners and Occupiers in a reasonable manner and not in any way which may (including, but not limited to) be:

(a) an annoyance;

(b) a nuisance;

(c) threatening or intimidating;

(d) defamatory; or

(e) anti-social.

26.1 An Owner or Occupier must not, without the written approval of the Body Corporate:

(a) interfere with, hinder, harass or otherwise obstruct contractors or employees engaged by the Body Corporate; or

(b) give instructions to contractors or employees on the Scheme Land engaged by the Body Corporate.

• [25] By-laws are binding on all owners and occupiers.[15] The Act imposes a duty on the body corporate to enforce the CMS, including the by-laws, albeit that it must act reasonably in doing so. The legislation sets out the processes for pursuing an alleged by-law breach.[16]
• [26] The respondent does not challenge the validity of By-laws 13 and 26. Notably, By-law 13 does not prevent an owner or occupier from communicating with the body corporate or raising issues of concern. It substantively just requires that communication to be reasonable. There seems nothing inherently inappropriate in a body corporate expecting communications to be reasonable, constructive, and not a nuisance.

• [27] The body corporate asserts that the respondent's correspondence is frequent, lengthy, and repetitive. The respondent does not dispute the frequency or length of correspondence she sends to the body corporate. She says she has a lot to cover. The respondent also does not dispute that her correspondence is repetitive. She appears to believe she needs to write repeatedly on the same issues because she is not satisfied by the response.
• [28] I am satisfied from the sample of correspondence and the respondent's submissions that provided that the respondent's is frequent and is often lengthy and repetitive.
• [29] The body corporate also says the respondent's correspondence is accusatory, intimidating, harassing. It is not evident from the submitted material that the respondent's emails are abusive or aggressive. But the nature and tone of much of the communications seem to me to be very derisive, critical, accusative, and histrionic. Moreover, from a brief review of the submitted material (albeit submitted out of context), I found the meaning and purpose of much of the correspondence to be unclear. It seems be convoluted and digressive. The respondent asks innumerable questions, but many seem to be rhetorical.
• [30] The respondent may write from a genuine desire to raise concerns and address issues. But it is difficult to ascertain what the respondent hopes to achieve by her correspondence. The correspondence does not appear to substantiate any of the numerous allegations and insinuations. If the respondent is dissatisfied with the conduct or decisions of the committee or others, or the responses to previous correspondence, it is not clear how continuing to write repeatedly will advance her concerns. Moreover, it is likely that the tone and style of the respondent's communications is counterproductive. It arguably distracts the reader trying to understand subject and detracts from any genuine issue. If previous responses have not addressed her concerns, the respondent does not appear to acknowledge that may be because her correspondence is difficult to understand or that the body corporate genuinely believes it has already responded to or addressed the issues that it can identify.
• [31] The respondent does not appear to acknowledge the effect of the nature and volume of her correspondence on others. She does not appear to recognise that body corporate's resources are likely being wasted in managing the large volume of correspondence and questions. She also does not appear to acknowledge the personal impact of the constant and repetitive accusations and insinuations on others. Rather, it seems she simply focusses on the way she perceives she has been treated.
• [32] I do not consider that individual communications from the respondent are necessarily offensive or in breach of By-law 13 in isolation. However, I am satisfied on the submitted evidence that the significant volume, repetition, and nature of the correspondence objectively constitutes an annoyance to the body corporate and its members at the very least, and to be unreasonable in the circumstances. On balance I am satisfied that the respondent's ongoing pattern of communication has amounted to a contravention of By-law 13.
• [33] In regard to By-law 26, the body corporate alleges that the respondent purports to issue directions to, and make demands of, the caretakers. The respondent should be aware that she has no right or authority to unilaterally issue directions to the caretakers or the body corporate manager, or to interfere with them undertaking their contracted roles. The submitted material indicates that the respondent has directed questions to the caretaker and body corporate manager, but I am unclear from the submitted material if her conduct in that regard has gone further. However, as the body corporate has not sought orders relating to the conduct covered by By-law 26 it is not necessary to consider that matter further.
• [34] The respondent says others have contravened by-laws but not been given breach notices. It is beyond the scope of this application to consider such allegations. If the respondent genuinely considers other contraventions have not been addressed, she can pursue that separately. But it is not a justification for the respondent to breach the by-laws.

• [35] The body corporate seeks an order to cease the volume, content, and amount of nuisance correspondence from the respondent. To that end, it seeks an order that correspondence from the respondent conform to 5 criteria. The respondent does not raise address the specifics of the orders sought.
• [36] As I am satisfied the respondent has breached By-law 13 in her ongoing pattern of correspondence with the body corporate, I will make an order declaring that the respondent must comply with the elements of that by-law in her communications.
• [37] The body corporate seeks a condition that the respondent's communication only be in writing. However, the application only indicates concerns with the respondent's written communication and has not suggested any issue with verbal communication. As such, it has not established that such a condition is necessary.
• [38] Next it seeks an order that written communication only be sent to the secretary's email address. I see no reason why the body corporate should not be entitled to nominate a single point of communication to enable it to manage incoming correspondence. Sending emails to 'all and sundry' is unlikely to assist efficient or appropriate body corporate responses.
• [39] I am unclear if the intent of the order sought was to prevent direct communication with other owners and occupiers. For the purposes of this application, I consider it is only appropriate to make an order regulating the point of communication with the body corporate. That will include communication intended for the committee, committee members (in that capacity), and agents of the body corporate (including the body corporate manager and caretakers). Communications with other owners and occupiers (in their capacity as an owner or occupier, rather than as a committee member or caretaker) is a matter for them to manage. They can block or ignore the respondent's emails (whether unsolicited or otherwise) if they object to them. However, the respondent should be conscious that By-law 13 applies to communications with other owners and occupiers as well as the body corporate. She must not communicate with other owners or occupiers in an unreasonable manner.
• [40] The body corporate asked that only one piece of written communication be sent per week unless it expressly invites further communication. Given the history of communication I consider that a reasonable request. I consider that should be sufficient for the respondent to raise genuine concerns. However, the body corporate should exercise commonsense in this regard, for example if there are urgent or emergency circumstances. If the body corporate invites communication from all owners (for example, if it invites general meeting motions or committee nominations, or requests feedback or comment from all) that would amount to expressly inviting further communication and not be included in the weekly limit. Similarly, if the respondent writes to the body corporate and it responds with a query, that query would likely be an express invitation to further communication.
• [41] Next the body corporate wants each item of correspondence to be limited to a maximum of 2 pages and 1,000 words. Given the history of long, repetitive, convoluted, digressive communications, a limit on length may assist the respondent to focus her communication and may ease the burden on the body corporate. In the context of emails, a limit on pages could be confusing. I consider a limit of 1,000 words per email should be sufficient.[17]
• [42] The 1,000-word limit will apply to communications invited by the body corporate as well as those initiated by the respondent. But again, the body corporate must exercise commonsense. It may not be practical to submit motions and associated explanatory material within that word limit. Motions that are validly submitted under the regulations cannot be disregarded or rejected simply because of the length of the communication.
• [43] Finally, the body corporate seeks a condition that all communication be courteous and not abusive or offensive. Although the emails have been derogatory and accusatory, I do not consider they have been overtly abusive or offensive. Where I have made a general declaration, I do not consider a specific condition of this nature is required.

• [44] It is evident the respondent considers she has a right to continue to communicate with the body corporate and its members in the manner she has done to date. She does not appreciate the constraints on communications in By-law 13. She does not appear to acknowledge the impact of her correspondence on the body corporate and on those she complains about. She does not appear to understand that the body corporate does not necessarily have an obligation to answer her emails or her questions.
• [45] I am satisfied the respondent's communication has collectively amounted to a contravention of By-law 13. It is clear the respondent has no intention of curtailing her correspondence. On that basis, I am satisfied that orders in the terms discussed are warranted.
• [46] I encourage the respondent to moderate her communications and adopt a more constructive approach in future. If she has genuine issues, she could send a single, succinct, and focussed email setting out the nature of her concern, including the specific statutory or by-law obligation she believes applies, the basis on which she believes an obligation has not been complied with, and the specific action she would like the body corporate to take to address the matter. It would undoubtedly assist if each communication was limited to a single issue and focused on current issues rather than revisiting historic matters. It would also assist if the respondent provided substantiation for any allegations. The respondent should avoid personal remarks, insinuations, and invective.
• [47] If the respondent is not satisfied with the response, she could pursue direct action rather than continuing to write. She could inspect the body corporate records to ascertain information she seeks herself.[18] Or she could submit a committee or general meeting motion proposing the action she wants the body corporate to take.[19] And if she considers the body corporate's actions or decisions (including on any submitted motions) contravene the legislation, she could pursue a dispute about that in this office.
• [48] The body corporate for its part must act reasonably in response to any correspondence received from the respondent. It should not automatically disregard all correspondence from the respondent, even if it does not consider it strictly complies with the requirements of this order or By-law 13. As a minimum, it should scan each incoming email to ascertain if it raises a matter on which it has an obligation to act and that it has not previously addressed. If it reasonably considers that no further action or substantive response is required, it may assist if it were to provide a brief acknowledgment to the respondent advising her of that.
• [49] I would make a further observation. It may be the respondent is genuine in her desire to ensure legislative compliance at the scheme. However, without considering the specifics of the innumerable issues she refers to, it does seem that the respondent may misapprehend some of the obligations under the legislation. Furthermore, she may have inaccurate or unrealistic expectations of the body corporate, its committee, and its agents.
• [50] A body corporate and its committee certainly must endeavour to comply with the legislation and must reasonably in carrying out their functions, including in making decisions.[20] But the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has said:[21]

The BCCMA is a lengthy, technical and complex instrument, with no fewer than six sets of subordinate and similarly complex "module regulations". It cannot be the case that the legislature expected all, or even most committee members of a body corporate, small, large or very large, to be experts in corporate law, or masters of community management. Indeed, the BCCMA implicitly recognises that, if this legislation were at all times, and in all circumstances applied with the utmost rigour and most precious attention to detail, its objects and policies would be retarded by endemic disputation, rather than advanced. > > The direction that a "body corporate must act reasonably" in the performance of its "general functions" does not suggest that every minor irregularity should be pounced on to impede or paralyse the normal conduct of business. The Code of Conduct for committee members does not demand administrative perfection, but simply directs them to "take reasonable steps" to comply with the BCCMA.

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[12] Proximity One [2016] QBCCMCmr 416, para 12

[13] See for example: Tank Tower [2015] QBCCMCmr 322; The Grove [2018] QBCCMCmr 581; Deagon Village [2018] QBCCMCmr 208

[14] Recorded 1 September 2021, Titles dealing number 721060328

[17] Noting that a 2-page single-spaced typed document typically contains around 1,000 words.

[19] I refer the respondent to the following information on how to draft a valid body corporate motion www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/committees-meetings/general-meetings/drafting-motions

[20] Sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[21] Carroll and Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21, at 22-23