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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - where the body corporate resolved to pay for repairs to a lot damaged by water ingress from the common property roof; where the applicants argue the owner of the lot and the majority of owners bear some responsibility for the damage because they frustrated attempts to repair the roof sooner; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by passing the resolution; whether the body corporate should be prevented from giving effect to the resolution until that question can be answered.

Act, ss 94(2), 279(1), 281; Standard Module, ss 98(1)(a), 180(1) & (5).

• [1] It is undisputed that the roof at Broadbeach Lodge was in poor condition for several years before being replaced this year. It featured in several previous applications to this office.[1]
• [2] Lot 12 is on the top floor. The owner claims to have suffered water ingress since purchasing in 2016.
• [3] With the roof repaired, she sought to have the damage to her lot repaired. A claim on the body corporate's insurance failed because:

...the damage has not occurred due to an insurable event but as a result of gradual deterioration, wear and tear, rot, lack of maintenance, and failure to maintain your insured property in a reasonably good state of repair...[2]

• [4] She submitted a group of same issue motions to an extraordinary general meeting on 19 November 2025 offering owners a choice between two quotations to repair the damage. Motion 2.1 succeeded with six votes in favour and four against, authorising a quotation for $39,218.
• [5] The applicants are the owners of lots 1, 2, 5 and 9. They argue:

...the decision to carry the Motion is unreasonable because:

• There is no causation established. There are no damage reports or explanation of what is repair work required and what are improvements or renovations. There is no independent professional scope of works, including photographic evidence to ensure that the claim has not been inflated.
• The body corporate paid for a mould report and did not present it as explanatory notes for the motion.
• There is no insurance claim history or advice from the building's insurance as explanatory notes to the motion.
• There is no evidence that shows lot 12's compliance with the lot owner duty of care to mitigate foreseeable loss.

• The quotes do not reference any damage reports or professional scope of work.

• The body corporate did not seek independent quotes and instead relied only upon Lot 12's submitted quotes. This is a significant lack of corporate governance when Lot 12 is also the committee chairperson.

• The Motion's explanatory notes are irrelevant and arguably misleading.

• [6] They also argue the decision itself is legally unreasonable because it is based on an incorrect assumption that the body corporate is responsible for the entirety of lot 12's loss, overlooking contributory fault by the owner of lot 12 and the majority of owners who control the body corporate committee.
• [7] The applicants seek orders in the following terms:

1. That Motion 2 is at all times void. > > 2. That the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing Motion 2. > > 3. Any other Order the Adjudicator considers appropriate in the circumstances. > > If any monies have been paid to Lot 12 or contractors on behalf of Lot 12 or the body corporate by the time final orders are made:

1. That Lot 12 re-imburse the body corporate in full for monies paid either to Lot 12 or direct to contractors, whether the contractors were acting on behalf of Lot 12 or the body corporate.

• [8] Until the application can be decided, they seek an interim order:

That the Respondent, or anyone acting upon its behalf, is restrained from taking any steps to implement or put into effect Motion 2 purportedly passed in the November 19th, EGM.

• [9] I am only concerned with the interim order at this stage, which will be made if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3] The applicants must raise serious legal questions with prospects of success at final orders (a prima facie case) to justify an interim order to prevent the implementation of motion 2 until those questions can be answered.

• [10] The body corporate is required to act reasonably in the exercise of its functions, including when making decisions.[4] The words "act reasonably" do not bear any special, technical meaning. As Justice Carmody put it:

The word "reasonably" is used in its ordinary sense and "act reasonably" has a corresponding meaning. Reasonable action is evidence-based and rational.[5]

• [11] The focus is on the body corporate's actions (act reasonably), rather than the quality or merits of its decisions.
• [12] The applicants separately argue that the decision itself was legally unreasonable, referring to Adjudicator Davidson's comment in an earlier decision to the effect that a decision that was made reasonably:

...will not be disturbed unless the decision itself a legally unreasonable one. A legally unreasonable decision lacks "an evident and intelligible justification when all relevant matters [are] considered."

• [13] Adjudicator Davidson was quoting Justice Carmody, who was discussing the body corporate's:

...mandatory general law duties in addition to the BCCM obligation to act reasonably. These include the duty to act in good faith, to make fully considered, rational and reasonable decisions that are not conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust.[6]

• [14] The quoted text appears in a discussion of irrationality, which, like the obligation to act reasonably, concerns the decision-making process rather than its product.[7] As Adjudicator Davidson said, it is made out where a decision lacks an intelligible justification.
• [15] At its most basic level, it is unremarkable for a body corporate to pay to repair damage to a lot caused by a failure to keep the common property in good condition. There is specific provision for it in the Act and adjudicators commonly order it.[8]
• [16] As noted, there is no dispute that the roof was in poor condition, nor that it was common property that the body corporate was obliged to maintain.[9] It is not disputed that the roof leaked into lot 12 either, damaging it.
• [17] The quotation that was selected by the body corporate described work consistent with damage caused by water ingress from above (e.g. replacing and painting plasterboard ceilings and cornices).
• [18] That is already enough to dispel the suggestion that the decision on motion 2.1 lacked an evident and intelligible justification. The body corporate sought to repair water damage to lot 12 caused by its failure to keep the common property roof in good condition. That much is obvious and easy to follow.
• [19] Nevertheless, the applicants' central concern that the body corporate failed to adequately consider others' liability for the damage to lot 12 may indicate a failure to act reasonably. Acting reasonably includes taking all relevant considerations into account.[10]
• [20] The applicants argue the owner of lot 12 and "the majority" bear some responsibility for the damage to lot 12. "The majority" are the other lot owners aside from the applicants - the owners of lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12. With the exception of lot 8, they comprise the membership of the body corporate committee. The owner of lot 12 is the chairperson. At one stage in the evolution of this dispute, these owners had contracts to sell their lots to a developer who wished to terminate the scheme. The applicants suggest they had no interest in repairing the roof at that time.
• [21] The majority are accused of delaying action to repair the roof, including by voting down the applicants' motions to repair the roof and proposing and supporting their own inappropriate contractors and quotations. If they had not, the applicants claim the damage to lot 12 would have been reduced or avoided.
• [22] But to my mind, that simply amounts to a description of how the body corporate came to fail to meet its responsibility to rectify the roof. It does not diminish the body corporate's responsibility. Body corporate decisions are always a product of the voting behaviour of a majority, but that does not change the fact that the body corporate has its own legal personality and responsibilities independently of the owners who make up its membership. It meets those responsibilities or does not and is liable, irrespective of what pattern of owner behaviour might explain its conduct. I do not see that an owner whose property is damaged because the body corporate fails to keep the common property in good condition should be entitled to less because the body corporate's failure can be explained with reference to the voting behaviour of its members. That is always the case.
• [23] The applicants also argue the owner of lot 12 is individually liable for some of the damage to her lot because she:
  1. did not request to have a tarpaulin erected over the lot to mitigate the damage, despite knowing that a tarpaulin had been erected over lot 9
  2. "failed to comply with insurance processes and instead expected the body corporate to pay for damages"
  3. refused to rule motion 2 out of order at the EGM on 19 November
  4. failed to disclose at an EGM on 8 January 2025 that $40,000 of a special levy for roof works was actually for works to lot 12
  5. authorised a payment to a contractor in April 2023 despite knowing they were not appropriately licensed, no building approval had been sought, and the scope of works was insufficient, and
  6. introduced a quotation from a company that lacked the required licence to the January 2025 EGM.
• [24] However, in the same order:
  1. the body corporate was responsible for the condition of the roof and could have acted to reduce the damage it was causing without waiting on a request from each affected owner
  2. I do not understand this point - the owner of lot 12 unsuccessfully attempted to claim on the body corporate's insurance
  3. it is not obvious that motion 2 was unlawful or unenforceable such that it should have been ruled out of order[11]
  4. I do not see how that resulted in additional damage to lot 12
  5. I do not see how that resulted in additional damage to lot 12, and
  6. the decision to accept the allegedly inappropriate quotation was made by the body corporate, not the owner of lot 12.
• [25] The applicants also criticise the owner of lot 12 for voting with the majority to obstruct repairs to the roof. I understand the majority voted down some repair motions in January 2024, though Adjudicator Davidson was not persuaded that was unreasonable.[12] They voted in favour of a motion to repair the roof in March 2024, though the applicants obtained an interim order to prevent its implementation and the body corporate subsequently rescinded it.[13] They voted in favour of a motion to repair the roof in January 2025 too, though the chosen contractor was apparently not properly licensed for the work and the parties subsequently rescinded the decision and selected someone else at a further general meeting in May.
• [26] It is not obvious the owner of lot 12 was attempting to obstruct repairs to the roof. She supported some measures and opposed others. It seems that some she supported were unsuitable. Perhaps that was unwise, but individual owners are not obliged to act reasonably. The ultimate decision that was made on each of these motions was made by the body corporate and was a product of the voting behaviour of all its members, not lot 12 alone.
• [27] The applicants also refer to section 180(5) of the Standard Module, arguing "it is a relevant fact that the Motion did not attempt to recover costs attached to its liability". However, section 180(5) only allows the body corporate to recover costs from a person whose actions cause damage to those elements of the lot the body corporate must maintain pursuant to section 180(2), which do not include plasterboard ceilings, cornices, and the like.
• [28] The applicants' other arguments appearing above at paragraph [5] amount to a complaint that further information could have been provided in relation to the motion. Those details seem relevant, but the fact that further relevant details could have been provided but were not does not necessarily mean the body corporate acted unreasonably. The applicants have not established any presumption that the proposed works to lot 12 may have been inflated, excessive, unjustified, or unrelated to the water ingress, such that the body corporate could not reasonably have authorised them without requiring additional evidence. It is not obvious why the body corporate could not have accepted the claim at face value given that it knew the roof had been leaking into lot 12 and the proposed works were the sorts of repairs that are typically associated with that kind of damage.

• [29] I am not satisfied that any of these arguments establish a serious likelihood that the body corporate acted unreasonably in relation to motion 2. There was an obvious rationale available to the body corporate for supporting the motion: namely, it caused the damage to lot 12 by failing to keep the roof in good condition. That conclusion was reasonably available notwithstanding that the body corporate's failure may have arisen from conflict between owners about the best way to address the condition of the roof. Even if it is true that the majority of owners, or the owner of lot 12, could have been held partially responsible for the damage to lot 12, it was nevertheless open to the body corporate to accept full responsibility in the circumstances.
• [30] Accordingly, the application for an interim order is dismissed.

[1] Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 8; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 37; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 144; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 249; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 263; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 468.

[2] Chantal Herter, Claims Consultant, CHU, Claim No CL02117575, 8 January 2025.

[4] Act, s 94(2).

[5] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [23].

[9] Standard Module, s 180(1).

[11] Standard Module, s 98(1)(a).

[12] Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 249 at [115].

[13] Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 144; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 468.