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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. Pending a final determination on this application, the Body Corporate for Brisbane Campus Apartments must not take steps to recover any amounts currently in arrears for Lot 284 that are associated with the rooftop exclusive use area, or impose any interest, debt recovery fees or other charges associated with those amounts, or otherwise treat any owner of Lot 284 as owing a body corporate debt if those amounts are not paid.
2. This interim order has effect until 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended (whichever is earlier).

• [1] This application is about amounts charged to the applicants.
• [2] The applicants' Lot 284 is one of 55 lots given exclusive use of a rooftop recreation area of common property under By-law 41. The by-law specifies the owners of those lots are jointly responsible for performing the body corporate's duties regarding that common property.
• [3] The contributions notices to the applicants include amounts of $41 variously listed as for 'rooftop' or 'rooftop exclusive use'. The applicants dispute this charge. It appears that while paying other levies, the applicants have not paid the rooftop charges and are currently in arrears. They say they have disputed the charges since 2022.
• [4] The applicants say the body corporate is in breach of the exclusive use by-law and the legislation in regard to the charge and that the amounts charged are unreasonable. They say it is not clear what the charge is for. They do not consider it is for maintenance, because the body corporate's budget does not show maintenance costs incurred by the body corporate. They say they are being charged an amount that is not mentioned in the by-law, and in any event, they have been denied access to the rooftop. They also say the rooftop amounts have been charged to 50 lots rather than 55.
• [5] The applicants seek orders that the amounts charged are not applicable to them. Alternatively, if the charges do apply to them, they want them apportioned amongst 55 lots instead of 50. They seek various final orders. In the interim, they seek an order that the body corporate be stopped from recovering the current arrears or adding further fees and charges related to recovering the arrears.
• [6] The only issue to decide at this time is whether interim orders are warranted.

• [7] Brisbane Campus Apartments community titles scheme 24668 (BCA) is a 332-lot scheme in Brisbane. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies.[1] The scheme is registered as building units plan 106845.
• [8] The applicants seek the following final orders:
  1. Amounts in relation rooftop area use and fees and charges imposed by the strata manager and Body Corporate Brisbane Campus Accommodation (BCBCA) be ordered inapplicable to me based on grounds presented below and attached (i.e breach of by-law 41, violation of section 152 BCCM Act, violation of section 182 Accommodation Module).
  2. Alternatively if the adjudicator finds that there has not been any breach or violation then BCBCA be ordered to reissue levies apportioned fairly to 55 lots instead 50 lots and that recovery fees or costs charged by the strata manager be removed from the reissued levies and all previous charges relating to rooftop access use be annulled.
  3. The Body corporate Commissioner Queensland refer this matter for investigation for breach of section 408C Queensland Criminal Code 1899.
  4. The adjudicator refer the BCBCA and Stratacare to ASIC for inappropriate behaviour in relation to charges and lack of any disputed resolution process.
  5. Where the adjudicator upholds this application, the BCBCA be ordered to pay costs for this application.
• [9] In the interim, they seek the following:
  1. That until final orders are resolved, the BCBCA be stopped from recovering any arrears amounts (currently $1,544.65) from any lot owners via legal action or any other means.
  2. Until final orders are resolved, the BCBCA be stopped from adding any further fees and charges (via its strata manager or otherwise) related to recovering any arrears amounts to the levies account for Lot 284.

• [10] 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 CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[2] In particular, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3]
• [11] Prima facie, I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[4]
• [12] An issue arises where the applicants are disputing body corporate charges and seeking to stop debt recovery action. An adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute.[5] A 'debt dispute' is defined in the Act as a dispute between a body corporate and an owner about the recovery, by the body corporate from the owner, of a debt under this Act.[6] For there to be a debt dispute, there needs to be an amount owing under the Act.[7] So, if an amount claimed is not owed under the Act, a dispute about the amount is not a debt dispute. If the body corporate cannot lawfully charge the applicants for the disputed amount, there will be no amount owing under the Act. Accordingly, to determine if I have jurisdiction to decide this dispute, I must consider if the disputed charges are validly owing under the Act.
• [13] It is not possible in the context of an interim order to conclusively determine whether the amounts claimed by the body corporate are owing under the Act. But where that is a live issue, until I can determine whether the invoiced amount is validly owing under the Act, I consider I am able to proceed to decide the application for interim orders.

• [14] This application was lodged on 20 November 2025.
• [15] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[8] The application was subsequently amended.[9]
• [16] As permitted, the Commissioner referred this application for a decision on whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[10] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [17] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected persons before an interim order is decided. However, given the circumstances, the committee was given with a limited opportunity to respond to the application. The committee subsequently made an interim submission.

• [18] The committee seeks dismissal of the application. It says the dispute is about a debt owed to the body corporate, for exclusive use access levies and debt recovery charges. It says that, while paying their other levies, the applicants have a long history of arrears for these charges. The submission most relevantly includes:
  1. It does not seem that the applicants have raised any legal questions, other than unsupported claims that they were not given access to the rooftop.
  2. The applicants have not taken action to dispute the debt and recovery charges since they purchased the lot in 2022, despite being advised of their right to do so.
  3. The applicant stopped paying the rooftop levies in October 2022. When the overdue amount was outstanding for 120 days, the committee decided to commence legal proceedings for a number of lots including Lot 284.
  4. It has followed all legislative requirements for it to recover levies in arrears.
  5. The body corporate manager explained to the applicants in May 2022 that the levies are not charged based on use but on contribution schedule lot entitlements.
  6. The exclusive use levies are as per lot contribution entitlements, not the number of lots.
  7. It disputes that the applicants have been denied access to the rooftop. They have been informed several times how to obtain a key to the rooftop.
  8. The applicants are liable for the payment of the rooftop exclusive use levy regardless of whether they use the rooftop.
  9. The charges are reasonable.
  10. If the applicants choose to relinquish the exclusive use right, they could put a motion to a general meeting to that effect. That has not been attempted.

• [19] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.
• [20] As a preliminary point, the first interim order sought is that the body corporate be prevented from recovering any arrears amounts "from any lot owners via legal action or other means". I am unclear if the applicants are referring to the current and future owners of Lot 284 or are also referring to other owners in the scheme. As this application only concerns the applicants, I am of the view that I can only consider orders in relation to Lot 284. If any other owners dispute amounts charged to them, they will need to pursue that matter directly.

• [21] Any order granted must be just and equitable. [11] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[12] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That means an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [22] The primary issue in this dispute is whether the body corporate is entitled to impose a charge or levy related to the rooftop exclusive use area to the applicant.
• [23] The current CMS sets out the following By-law 41:

• 41.1 Notwithstanding any other by-law, the registered proprietors for the time being of Lots 277 to 331 (inclusive) are entitled for themselves and their licensees to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the Roof Recreation Area depicted in the sheet marked 'Y' within the plans in Schedule E of the Community Management Statement. The proprietor for the time being of each such Lot shall use such exclusive use area for the purposes of recreation only and shall not litter the same or use the same so as to cause a nuisance. The proprietors for the time being of such Lots shall be jointly responsible for the performance of the duties of the Body Corporate pursuant to section 152(1) of the Act in respect of such exclusive use area.
• [24] The applicants' lot is one of the 55 lots given exclusive use of the rooftop.
• [25] It seems the body corporate maintains a separate 'fund' for the exclusive use rooftop. The minutes of the annual general meeting of 7 October 2025 supplied by the committee show (Motion 6) that the body corporate adopted a 'rooftop exclusive use' budget. For the year ending 30 June 2025 that budget is $8,200 with levies a rate of $41 per lot contribution entitlement for each quarter. I assume from the submitted material (although it may require clarification when the final orders are determined) that this levy is only charged to the owners of the lots with exclusive use under By-law 41.
• [26] It is not yet clear to me what this budget and associated levy is for. There is some indication it is for maintenance.
• [27] A statement of income and expenditure for the 2024-25 financial year included in the application indicates an income of $8,200 for 'excl. use roof-top' in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years but no actual expenditure. There was a budgeted expenditure of $1,600 for "Roof Top R & M" and $2,400 for cleaning for the 2024-25 financial year but it does not appear that was actually incurred.
• [28] If owners with exclusive use of the rooftop are being levied for maintenance or other costs associated with the rooftop, there is a question of the body corporate's authority to do so. Although the committee says the applicants are liable for the rooftop exclusive use levy, its submission does not address the basis for it to charge that levy.
• [29] Regardless of what it considers fair or justifiable, a body corporate is only empowered to levy owners, impose fees, or pass on costs if there is a specific legislative power to do so.[13] In terms of the levying of contributions, the legislation only provides for the body corporate to adopt budgets for the administrative and sinking funds, and it must then levy all owners (not just some) for the contributions required to meet those budgets.[14]
• [30] In general, a body corporate is responsible for maintaining common property,[15] while lot owners are responsible for maintaining their lots.[16] However, where an area of the common property is allocated for the exclusive use of a lot, the obligation to maintain that part of the common property may transfer to the lot owner. The lot owner will be responsible for the maintenance and operating costs of an exclusive use area unless the scheme's by-laws provide otherwise.[17] My preliminary view is that By-law 41 does not disturb the default position that the owners who benefit from the exclusive use of the rooftop recreation area are responsible for maintaining the area.
• [31] Generally, a body corporate cannot purport to impose fees and charges on owners or occupiers by way of a by-law.[18] An exclusive use by-law is an exception to this. But arguably, if a body corporate seeks to impose a monetary liability on an owner or occupier through an exclusive use by-law that would need to be explicit. While By-law 41 appears to impose a maintenance obligation on the owners benefiting from it, it does not expressly impose an obligation to pay a levy or charge associated with the grant of exclusive use.
• [32] Where By-law 41 transfers the body corporate's duties about the rooftop area (such as maintenance) onto the owners benefiting from the grant of exclusive use, arguably the body corporate then has no authority to then continue to undertake those duties. The body corporate would arguably be acting beyond its statutory powers if it were to undertake the maintenance of something that was legally the responsibility of an owner.
• [33] My preliminary view is that there would only be two scenarios where the body corporate could incur maintenance and similar costs for the rooftop area notwithstanding that the by-law appears to have transferred those obligations to the benefiting owners.
• [34] First, the body corporate could enter into an individual agreement with each owner benefiting from the exclusive use area for the supply of maintenance services relating to the rooftop.[19] That approach may be appropriate where multiple lot owners share responsibility for the rooftop, and it may be difficult for them to arrange amongst themselves how their responsibilities in regard to the exclusive use area will be met. However, it is not clear that the body corporate has entered in an agreement with the applicants (or any other owner) to do so. Simply passing a general meeting resolution to levy owners would not appear to be sufficient for that purpose, particularly where it seems most of the affected owners did not vote on the motion. Moreover, under such an agreement the body corporate could only charge for services actually delivered and to the extent necessary for reimbursing the body corporate for the supply of services. If the body corporate has not actually incurred costs relating to the rooftop, it is not clear what basis it could have to recover any costs.
• [35] Alternatively, if the body corporate considered that the applicants or any other owners benefiting from By-law 41 had failed to meet their obligation to maintain the rooftop area, it could potentially resolve to undertake the work itself and then recover the reasonable costs of the work from the owners as a debt.[20] But there is no indication that has occurred in this case, particularly when it is not clear the body corporate has actually undertaken work.
• [36] If the body corporate was empowered to levy the owners of lots benefiting from By-law 41 that levy would likely be payable regardless of whether the owners or occupiers actually used the exclusive use area. And, at this stage, the applicants have not yet clearly established that they have been prevented from accessing the exclusive use area.
• [37] But on the material submitted to date, I consider the applicants have identified a genuine question as to whether the body corporate is empowered to levy them (or any other owner benefiting from By-law 41) at all.
• [38] Although I am only deciding the interim orders at this stage, for the information of the parties I will comment briefly on the final orders.
• [39] In regard to final order 1, as outlined I am satisfied there is a genuine issue to be decided in regard to whether the rooftop charges have been validly imposed by the body corporate.
• [40] With final order 2, if the charge is valid, it is not yet clear to me that the body corporate has only imposed the charge on 50 of the 55 lot owners who benefit from the rooftop exclusive use area. The applicants may need to provide further substantiation in that regard.
• [41] Neither I nor the Commissioner have any authority under the Act to refer a matter for investigation of a breach of the Criminal Code Act 1899 or to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, as sought by final orders 3 and 4. Moreover, I note that the body corporate manager is not a party to this application and could not be.[21] The applicants could seek private legal advice as to their options for pursuing those matters.
• [42] And with regard to final order 5, I note that there is no inherent authority of an adjudicator to award costs to any party, [22] and no such authority is provided for in the legislation. The only circumstances in the Act for costs to be awarded do not currently apply in this dispute.[23]

• [43] The applicants say they are in the process of selling Lot 284, with settlement scheduled for 7 December 2025, with a financial penalty if settlement is delayed. Accordingly, they say the interim relief sought is urgent. They say the interim orders are needed to prevent economic loss as they will be unfairly disadvantaged if the body corporate is able to recover the disputed amounts as part of the settlement adjustments.
• [44] The committee says the applicants do not clarify why the recovery of the arrears as part of the settlement would be economically harmful to them. But it also submits that once the settlement occurs and the debt is paid from the proceeds, there will be no dispute for the current owners to pursue. It opposes an interim order to prevent the body corporate recovering arrears from any owner, as then it would not have enough funds to run the building. It says it is unreasonable to request that the body corporate be stopped from adding further charges while the debt remains unpaid.
• [45] The committee's submission does not indicate any particular adverse impact to the body corporate from the interim orders sought if limited to Lot 284. It says the question of the body corporate being disadvantaged is not relevant. Beyond a delay in recovering the disputed amounts, it is not clear what harm would arise for the body corporate from the interim orders sought.

• [46] I am satisfied the applicant has raised a genuine question about whether the body corporate is entitled to impose the disputed charges. In the circumstances, I am satisfied an interim order is warranted to restrain the body corporate from acting to recover the current arrears, or any associated charges, until the validity of the charges can be determined.
• [47] The application for final orders remains to be determined. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act. Given the circumstances, I will recommend to the Commissioner that the matter be referred to the Conciliation Service to explore whether the parties could resolve this dispute with the assistance of a conciliator.
• [48] If the dispute is not otherwise resolved between the parties, I anticipate the Commissioner will seek submissions from the committee and all owners about the final orders before referring the application for final determination.
• [49] The parties should note section 279(2) of the Act regarding the term and effect of an interim order. This interim order will have effect for a period of up to twelve months. The interim order will not automatically be renewed, and it will be up to the applicant to request an extension of the order if this application is not otherwise resolved within twelve months.

[1] The Accommodation Module previously applied but a new CMS was recorded in November 2024 (Titles dealing number 723660898) which changed the applicable regulation module.

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

[7] The Body Corporate for The Grove CTS9356 v Comerford [2019] QCATA 172

[13] See for example Chevron Renaissance [2020] QBCCMCmr 358

[14] Pursuant to sections 160, 162 and 163 of the Standard Module

[15] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[16] Section 211 of the Standard Module

[17] Section 192 of the Standard Module

[19] Pursuant to section 210 of the Standard Module

[20] Pursuant to section 212 of the Standard Module

[22] See for example: Spicer v Carmody; Robinson v Carmody [1948] NSWStRp 25; Queensland Fish Board v Bunney, Ex parte Queensland Fish Board [1979] QSCFC 11

[23] Sections 270(1)(c) and 280 of the Act