Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURE - whether a general meeting was validly held.

Standard Module, s 91

[1] This application is about the validity of the annual general meeting (AGM) on 24 July 2025.

[2] Notice of the AGM was emailed to owners on 1 July. The applicant acknowledges this gave the requisite 21 days' notice. On 14 July the applicant received an email recall from the body corporate manager (BCM), stating that the BCM wished to recall a message with the subject 'Meeting Invitation - BUDERIM HEIGHTS - DO NOT DELETE THIS EMAIL'. On 22 July the applicant received another email providing information about the AGM scheduled for 24 July.

[3] The applicant believes the 14 July email recalled the AGM notice of 1 July without explanation or indication of when a new notice would be issued. The applicant believes the 22 July email was a replacement notice that was inadequate because it was only 2 days before the meeting. The applicant believes that because the original AGM notice was recalled, it cannot be relied on to meet the statutory notice period. Accordingly, the applicant argues the AGM was not properly convened, and the purported AGM resolutions are invalid. The applicant asserts there was confusion and disillusionment within the community. They say some voted electronically based on the first notice and were unclear if they needed to vote again, while others delayed voting pending a new notice.

[4] The applicant wrote to the committee about this (and other matters) after the AGM. The committee responded that it was unable to identify any correspondence cancelling the AGM.

[5] The applicant seeks the invalidation of the AGM and a new meeting held. The question then is whether there is any basis to invalidate the AGM.

[6] Buderim Heights community titles scheme 19240 (Buderim Heights) is a 41-lot scheme in Buderim. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as group titles plan 4124.

I request that the adjudicator declare the AGM held on 24 July 2025 void; and direct the Body Corporate to convene a new AGM with proper statutory notice, or alternatively convene an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to validly decide the matters purportedly resolved at the defective AGM.

[8] 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]

[9] This application was lodged on 29 September 2025.

[10] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[3] A submission was made on behalf of the committee, which the applicant obtained and responded to.[4]

[11] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[6]

[12] The submission made by 4 committee members opposes the application. It includes:

1. The AGM notice was issued on 1 July, providing 23 days' notice.
2. The applicant received the notice, engaged with it, submitted feedback, and voted.
3. The AGM was not cancelled. No owners received a cancelation notice.
4. The 14 July email was a recall of a separate meeting invitation about committee nominations. It did not pertain to the AGM. Other committee members have no record of receiving the recall email and it appears it was for direct liaison between the applicant and the BCM. This is evidenced by the communication between the applicant and the BCM on 14 July about committee nominations.
5. The AGM notice remained valid and effective.
6. On 15 July the BCM sent a statement from the committee to all owners in response to an email from the applicant on 7 July. The statement did not indicate the AGM had been cancelled, postponed or otherwise.
7. On 16 and 17 July the BCM sent emails about the meeting link for the AGM.
8. The 22 July email was an automated reminder. It contained the same information as sent on 1 July. It did not replace or alter the original meeting details and motions remained unchanged, except for minor updates to pricing of a gardening contract.
9. 17 owners participated in the AGM, consistent with historic attendance. The applicant's assertion of community confusion is unsubstantiated. If the allegation of confusion is accurate, that was created by the applicant himself.
10. Given the applicant's history of frequent communication with the body corporate, it suggests that if the applicant was confused, he would have sought clarification.
11. The AGM was conducted on the scheduled date, with a valid quorum, in accordance with prescribed voting procedures. The minutes accurately reflect the meeting. There is no procedural defect to justify invalidating the AGM or its resolutions.

1. He was not on the committee at the time and had not received any other notices or invitations from the BCM, so the recall of the meeting invitation could not be interpreted in any way other than the way he did.
2. None of the notices or invitations he referred to were from a committee member, but the rebuttal relies solely on the input from one current committee member who was not a committee member at the relevant time.
3. While the submission says the AGM was not cancelled, 'recall' is just one of the works in the English language that could be used to provide the same outcome.
4. Other matters in the submission have no bearing on the issue at stake here.

[14] Section 91 of the Standard Module requires that a general meeting can only be held at least 21 days after notice of the meeting is given to all owners. It is couched in mandatory terms. In calculating the notice period, pursuant to section 38(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the day of giving the notice and the day of the meeting are excluded. So, there must be 21 clear days between the giving of the notice and the meeting.

[15] The applicant does not dispute that the notice given on 1 July was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. But if the AGM notice was not given until 22 July, that would clearly have breached the regulations and been insufficient to enable owners with consider the meeting material and engage in the meeting.

[16] The question then is whether the notice given on 1 July was withdrawn on 14 July, or the meeting otherwise cancelled or postponed, such that the 1 July notice did not have effect.

[17] On the submitted material, the applicant has not satisfied me that was the case.

[18] The applicant does not provide any evidence that the recall email he received on 14 July was recalling the 1 July email that issued the AGM notice. He does not evidence that it was 'recalling' or otherwise cancelling or postponing the AGM notice itself. The email he provides does not specify that. The 14 July email includes only the subject line and does not indicate the date or substance of the email being recalled.

[19] I am not convinced that an email notifying the recall of a message referring to an (unspecified) meeting invitation should logically be interpreted as cancelling the AGM or withdrawing the AGM notice without any other information or explanation. If the body corporate had intended to withdraw the AGM notice or cancel or postpone the AGM, it seems more probable (particularly noting the other communications from the body corporate to owners) that it would more explicitly email owners to that effect. Moreover, the emails from the BCM to owners on 15, 16 and 17 July referring to the AGM are inconsistent with any suggestion that the committee had cancelled or postponed the AGM.

[20] The applicant provides no evidence that any other owner received the recall email of 14 July or otherwise received notification from the body corporate that the AGM scheduled for 24 July had been cancelled or the AGM notice withdrawn. That is despite the committee submitting that no one else received that email.

[21] The committee submission includes attachments evidencing the applicant had an exchange of emails with the BCM on 14 July which each had the subject 'Re: Meeting Invitation - BUDERIM HEIGHTS - DO NOT DELETE THIS EMAIL'. Accordingly, it seems more plausible that the recall email related to an email on that date sent only to the applicant.

[22] The applicant also provides no evidence that any other owner believed the AGM had been cancelled or the AGM notice withdrawn. The applicant has not substantiated his assertion that any owner was confused about the status of the AGM because of information provided (or not provided) by the body corporate, despite the lack of evidence in that regard being queried in the submission. The applicant also provides no evidence that the participation or vote of any other owner was impeded because of any alleged confusion.

[23] It is possible the applicant was genuinely confused by the 14 July email, albeit that he did not apparently seek to clarify the email before the AGM. But the applicant clearly had the opportunity to consider the AGM motions and vote on them. The applicant has not established that any confusion impeded his ability to participate in the AGM.

[24] The applicant has also not evidenced that the information included in the 22 July email differed from the information contained in the notice on 1 July.

[25] The applicant has not substantiated his claims. I am not satisfied on the submitted evidence that the body corporate withdrew the AGM notice issued on 1 July or that it did not provide adequate notice of the AGM. It follows that the application is dismissed.

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