Brigiden [2025] QBCCMCmr 345 (13 October 2025)

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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE - where the replacement of the applicant's veranda by the body corporate will mean her blinds no longer fit and her doors, windows, and air conditioners may be damaged; whether the body corporate must replace these items.

Act, s 281; Standard Module, ss 172, 173, 180(2)(b); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1) & 49C(4).

• [1] Ms Conway's veranda is to be demolished and rebuilt by the body corporate. She has blinds on the veranda that will not fit the new structure. Ms Conway says the body corporate must replace them.
• [2] She would also like air conditioning units, doors and windows in the vicinity of the veranda to be replaced as part of the work.
• [3] Ms Conway seeks orders in the following terms:

1 The Body Corporate make an undertaking to meet the costs and do all things necessary to, like for like, replace the exterior blinds which they are to remove and dispose of during the works being conducted to demolish and rebuild the veranda attached to my apartment, as soon as is practicable after the building of the veranda is completed.

2 I am seeking the body corporate make an undertaking and commitment because there is currently no opportunity to provide a quote which would bring about an outcome that the body corporate pay a particular amount in order to replace the exterior blinds. No one can access the veranda to provide an estimate and a full quote cannot be obtained until the new veranda is built.

3 I am happy to facilitate the provision of quotes for replacement blinds to the body corporate committee or for the body corporate to source their own quotes from reputable providers.

4 The blinds are manual track guided the high UV rating (full block-out), heavy duty (highest wind rating), manual track guided fully side restrained (see Ziptrak) with an enclosed pelmet. They do not have a rope or crank handle they operate by simply pushing them up or pulling them down. They are not motorised. They are fitted from top to bottom across all three sides of the veranda.

5 I am seeking the body corporate accept liability for the costs and the undertaking of all things necessary to replace the air conditioning units, doors and windows, like for like, as soon as is practicable after the building of the veranda is completed and that they do so as a component within the entirety of the veranda works project and not as a separate matter wherein I am to seek reimbursement in the event they become damaged or inoperable during the demolition and rebuild of the veranda.

• [4] The veranda forms the boundary between lots 10 and 12.[1] It is shared between them and should generally be maintained in good condition by the owners of those lots.[2]
• [5] However, as Brigiden was created under a building format plan of subdivision, the body corporate must:

maintain in a structurally sound condition the following elements of scheme land that are not common property -

(i) foundation structures;

(ii) roofing structures providing protection;

(iii) essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls.

• [6] The veranda is a roofing structure over the patio of lot 10. It includes "essential supporting framework" such as the corroded "c beam". Accordingly, the body corporate must keep it structurally sound. An engineer who inspected it in October 2024 found its condition to be so poor that "it is highly likely that the structure should be removed and replaced".[3]
• [7] Ms Conway does not dispute that the veranda requires replacement, nor does she suggest that it could or should be rebuilt in such a way that her existing blinds could be reinstated. It seems that it is simply an unfortunate consequence of the body corporate meeting its statutory maintenance obligation that the blinds will no longer fit.
• [8] This situation is not analogous to tiles on a balcony destroyed by a body corporate so it can meet its obligation to maintain a roofing membrane in good condition.[4] In that situation, the tiles must be destroyed to gain access to the membrane beneath, and new tiles must be installed to adequately protect the membrane afterwards. The destruction and reinstatement of the tiles is an unavoidable part of the membrane replacement and is held to be the body corporate's responsibility.[5]
• [9] But there is no need to destroy the blinds. It is only the veranda that will be demolished. While Ms Conway claims the body corporate will dispose of the blinds, she has presented no evidence of that. I have no reason not to accept the committee's claim that the blinds will be returned to her after the work, their condition unchanged.
• [10] The question is whether the body corporate is under an obligation to install new blinds for Ms Conway because the old ones will no longer fit. I cannot see it. The body corporate must simply ensure the veranda is structurally sound once more. New blinds are not a requirement for that.
• [11] Ms Conway says the existing veranda might have been saved if the body corporate had acted sooner to address its condition. Her blinds might have continued to fit in those circumstances.
• [12] Where an applicant's property is damaged by a contravention of the Act (e.g. by the body corporate failing to maintain a roofing structure in a structurally sound condition), I can order the responsible party to repair or replace that property.[6] But the blinds were not damaged by the body corporate's delay in meeting its obligations.
• [13] I am not persuaded that the body corporate is under a legal obligation to install new blinds for Ms Conway. Even if it was, I would not make orders 1-4 because there is no evidence that Ms Conway has ever sought the installation of new blinds at a general meeting. She has corresponded with the committee about it, but the committee lacks the power to approve the necessary expenditure.[7] The committee advises its spending limit was $2,400 until the AGM of 25 March 2025, when it was increased to $4,800. Ms Conway indicates in her application that her blinds are worth "tens of thousands of dollars". She must seek approval for that by ordinary resolution at a general meeting[8], where she will be required to give owners a choice between at least two quotations.[9] Until she does, she cannot claim that the body corporate has refused to install new blinds. The body corporate has not made a decision about it.
• [14] With respect to Ms Conway's fifth order, she has presented no evidence that any doors, windows, or air conditioners will be damaged by the veranda works. The committee points out that the contractor has undertaken to protect those things during the work, and that redress is likely to be available via the contractor's insurer if anything is inadvertently damaged. I am not satisfied that the order is required.

[1] Survey plan 141351; Land Title Act 1994, s 48C(1).

[2] Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4); Standard Module, s 180(2)(b).

[3] Adrian Dine, structural engineer, quoted by Shirley Farrell obo the committee in email to Ms Conway on 26 October 2024.

[4] Standard Module, s 180(2)(a)(iii).

[5] E.g. see Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at [65]- [70].

[7] Standard Module, s 172.

[8] Standard Module, s 172(1)(a).

[9] Standard Module, s 173.