C-Scape [2025] QBCCMCmr 429 (1 December 2025)

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order stopping the body corporate from acting on potentially invalid motions is warranted.

1. The Body Corporate for C-Scape CTS 49638 must not take any steps to implement Motion 2, Motion 3.1 or Motion 3.2 of the extraordinary general meeting called to be held on 2 December 2025, should any of those motions be passed by the body corporate at the meeting.
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the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended.

• [1] The applicant lot owner takes issue with the body corporate calling an extraordinary general meeting, and takes particular issue with several motions that are proposed to that meeting.
• [2] The disputed motions relate to the engagement of contractors for repair works to the roofs of several lots within the scheme. The scheme is a building format plan of subdivision.
• [3] There is one motion that proposes fixing the roofs of 8 lots within the scheme. It does not appear to be in dispute that the roofs of these lots suffered damage as a result of Tropical Cyclone Alfred earlier in the year, and that it is the body corporate's responsibility to fix. There is no information in front of me suggesting that a claim on the building insurance was attempted in relation to the event and resultant damage.
• [4] There is only one relevant proposal for these works, where the quote was obtained by the body corporate managers, SSKB. The proposal is that John Lying Strata Services be engaged to undertake the works at a cost of $34,836.95. The applicant says this amount is over the relevant limit for major spending at the scheme, and a comparative quote is therefore required.
• [5] The applicant also disputes two motions that form part of a group of same issue motions. These motions propose the engagement of alternative contractors to perform works to the roof of Lot 60. The applicant says the works are due to building defects and not storm damage, the works are to improve the lot, and the body corporate should not be responsible for those works. The applicant also says the owner of Lot 60 was involved with the proposing of the motions, and says this is not appropriate.
• [6] While I am not satisfied the applicant has raised a prima facie case to invalidate the whole of the meeting, I have made the interim order sought as, on my preliminary review, I am currently satisfied that:
  1. The applicant has raised a serious legal question regarding the proposed engagement of John Lyng Strata Services where the proposal appears to be above the relevant limit for major spending and a second quote has not been proposed via a group of same issue motion.
  2. The applicant has raised a serious legal question regarding the proposed engagement of contractors for work to Lot 60's roof, where the works include improving the roofing materials, improving battens and the installation of insulation, and it is not immediately clear that these works fall within the body corporate's legislative maintenance responsibilities.
  3. The balance of convenience justifies interim relief where, if the motions are passed and acted upon, the body corporate would be bound to agreements with third parties that may not be able to be undone.
• [7] For the avoidance of any doubt, this interim decision is based on a preliminary review of the materials currently in front of me, where materials do not include submissions from the body corporate or affected persons. This decision should not be interpreted as confirming the proposed works to Lot 60 are wholly the lot owner's responsibility. At this stage, my only finding is that there is a serious legal question regarding the proposed works.

• [8] This application is brought by the owner of Lot 1 against the body corporate.

• [9] The scheme is a building format plan of 99 lots and common property. The lots are a mix of standalone and semi-connected lots, the vast majority being one storey. Balconies and some courtyards form part of lots. The majority of courtyards are common property subject to exclusive use grants, as are car parks.
• [10] Titles records show the scheme is subject to a building management statement, and the community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies.

• [11] The body corporate has called an extraordinary general meeting to be held on 2 December 2025 (Disputed General Meeting).
• [12] At the Disputed General meeting, the following motions have been proposed, that the applicant disputes:
• [13] Motion 2 which reads as follows:

THAT the Body Corporate engage John Lyng Strata Services as per quotation JSTQ05535 at the cost of $34,836.95 (excluding GST) to rectify the roofs of Lots 1, 19, 37, 65, 86, 89, 95, and 97 which were affected during Cyclone Alfred in March 2025.

THAT the Body Corporate engage AMJ as per quotation QT016705 at the cost of $29,240.00 (excluding GST) to rectify the roofs of Lot 60 which was affected during Cyclone Alfred in March 2025.

THAT the Body Corporate the Body Corporate engage Auswide as per quotation #306 at the cost of $23,901.90 (excluding GST) to rectify the roofs of Lot 60 which was affected during Cyclone Alfred in March 2025.

• [16] The final orders sought, which are not being determined that this time, read as follows:

1. Order 1: A declaration that the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for 2 December 2025 is void due to procedural irregularities and breaches of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) and the Standard Module Regulation 2020 (the Regulation). > > 2. Order 2: If Order 1 CANNOT be made prior to 2 December 2025 and the EGM proceeds, if Motion 2, Motion 3.1 and 3.2 get passed during the EGM hold on 2 December 2025, a order to declare that Motion 2, Motion 3.1, and/or Motion 3.2 passed at the EGM are invalid. > > 3. Order 3: An order requiring the Body Corporate to disclose to all owners: > > o Full Fee-For-Service (FFS) charge details with descriptions of the fee issued by SSKB from 1 August 2025 to present; and > > o Transaction ledgers for all FFS-related payments; and > > o Confirmation that all owners retain lawful rights to access Body Corporate records under Act s205 and Regulation s221, without committee-imposed restrictions.

• [17] The interim orders sought, which are being determined, read as follows:

If Motion 2, Motion 3.1, or Motion 3.2 is passed at the EGM on 2 December 2025, an interim order is sought requiring the Body Corporate to suspend all works, actions, procurements, or commitments arising from these motions until final orders are made.

• [18] Seeking comments from those who may be affected before making an interim order is generally desirable. However, I may make interim orders without seeking such submissions.[1]
• [19] The interim application was referred to me on Friday afternoon, with the Disputed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday morning. I invited submissions from the committee and some affected lot owners by Sunday evening, but the email was not seen by the body corporate manager or secretary until Monday morning and no submissions were received.
• [20] I have proceeded without submissions. If any affected persons consider there is information that will alter my interim decision, they may provide it. Otherwise, all owners will have the opportunity to make submissions in the final application, if the dispute continues.

• [21] Interim orders are temporary in their effect. Typically, their purpose is to maintain the status quo, preserving a party's rights or interest until the matter can be finally determined, usually by stopping a party from taking certain actions.
• [22] The ability for an adjudicator to make an interim order is provided for in the legislation. An adjudicator may make an interim order where satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the order is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] Adjudicators often follow the test applied by courts in interlocutory applications, being whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case, and whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief claimed.[3]
• [23] Therefore, to be successful in their application for interim orders, the applicant must satisfy me that:
  1. there is a prima facie case to justify relief, and

1. the balance of convenience justifies the interim relief.

• [24] While I am not determining the final orders sought, determining whether there is a genuine legal issue at the interim stage requires some level of assessment of the final orders.
• [25] The onus is on the applicant to prove there is a prima facie case to justify the relief they seek. The applicant does not need to show that it is more probable than not that they will succeed. The applicant needs to show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the interim orders pending a final determination of the matter.[4] How strong the possibility of success that is needed depends upon the nature of the rights the applicant asserts, and the consequences of the order sought.[5]

3.1.1. First final order sought - voiding of meeting as a whole

• [26] The first final order seeks for the whole of the Disputed General Meeting to be declared void for "procedural irregularities and breaches" of the legislation.
• [27] The applicant has not advanced any arguments relating to contraventions of the Act in the calling of the meeting and issuance of the notice and agenda.
• [28] Therefore, on my preliminary review, I am not currently satisfied there is a prima facie case for the first final order sought.

3.1.2. Second final order sought - validity of Motion 2

• [29] The second final order seeks Motion 2 to be declared void.
• [30] Motion 2 is for the engagement of a contractor to perform rectification works to the roofs of 8 lots within the scheme. It is not disputed that these lots have suffered damage to their roofs in a storm, and it is not disputed that the body corporate is responsible for the works.
• [31] Typically, such an event and resultant damage would be covered under the scheme's building insurance.[6] There appears to be no information in front of me confirming whether an insurance claim was attempted.
• [32] The applicant argues that the cost of the proposal, $38,320.65, is above the 'relevant limit for committee spending' and therefore a second quote is needed. The applicant provides copies of a general meeting where the body corporate increased the limit for committee spending to $25,000. It appears the applicant has conflated the relevant limit for committee spending with the relevant limit for major spending. This is a common misunderstanding. The committee limit determines whether the proposal may be approved by a committee vote.[7] It is the major spending limit that directs whether or not a second quote is required.
• [33] As there are 99 lots in the scheme, the relevant limit for major spending is $10,000, unless the body corporate has passed an ordinary resolution to alter that limit.[8]
• [34] There is an email in front of me from SSKB acknowledging that SSKB was engaged to obtain quotes for the roof works. However, the email indicates SSKB could only source one quote and that the committee was advised a second quote was required under the legislation.[9] This suggests that the cost of the proposal to engage John Lyng Strata Services is above the relevant major spending limit for the scheme.
• [35] Where a proposal is above the relevant limit for major spending, and is proposed to a general meeting,[10] section 163 of the Accommodation Module applies. It provides that owners must be given copies of at least 2 quotations for carrying out the works, and must be proposed as a group of same issue motion.[11]
• [36] However, if for exceptional reasons, it is not practicable to obtain 2 quotations, a single quotation is acceptable. An example of exceptional reasons is where goods are only available from one source.[12]
• [37] Given the nature of the works, it is difficult to say a second quote could not be sourced. It follows that, at this preliminary stage and noting I do not have submissions from the body corporate, I am currently satisfied there is a prima facie case for voiding this motion.

3.1.3. Second final order sought - validity of Motions 3.1 & 3.2

• [38] The applicant argues that the owner of Lot 60, a committee member, should not have been involved in proposing Motions 3.1 and 3.2 due to a conflict of interest.
• [39] Voting papers must specify whether each motion was submitted by the committee or include the submitter's name and lot number.[13] Unfortunately, this appears to have been overlooked for the Disputed General Meeting.
• [40] A vote outside of committee meeting record of motion dated 6 November 2025 (VOCM), relating to the Disputed General Meeting agenda, does not clarify whether Motions 3.1 and 3.2 were submitted by the committee or merely approved for inclusion after being proposed by a lot owner pursuant to section 76 of the Accommodation Module.
• [41] If the motions were submitted by the owner of Lot 60 in their capacity as a lot owner, the applicant has not established a prima facie case, as all lot owners are entitled to propose motions and obtain quotes.[14]
• [42] If the motions were submitted by the committee via the VOCM, and the owner of Lot 60 voted in favour, it is unnecessary to speculate on a conflict of interest for the purpose of the application. The remaining eligible committee members also supported the motion, suggesting it would have been proposed regardless.
• [43] The more persuasive argument made by the applicant is that the proposed works are improvement works and not maintenance works, particularly where the need for the works has not been explained. The applicant also suggests the original builder or developer may be responsible. Therefore, the applicant suggests it would be unreasonable for the body corporate to pass either motion.
• [44] The two proposals encompass various works, including re-sheeting of the roof, new roof insulation, and replacing roof battens with steel, and the replacement of skylights.
• [45] Both proposals clearly indicate an intention to install improved roofing materials.
• [46] Whether or not the body corporate has such a responsibility is not immediately clear. In a BFP subdivision, certain elements[15] of the roof are common property that it must maintain in 'good' condition,[16] and the body corporate also has an obligation to keep roofing structures in a 'structurally sound' condition, even where that does not relate to common property.[17] Whether the works relate to common property or may otherwise be the body corporate's responsibility is not immediately clear. Further, whether works improving the current roofing materials is maintenance largely depends on whether the change is, objectively, necessary to keep the area in 'good' or 'structurally sound' condition.
• [47] To further complicate things, if it is the case that the works are to common property, and the works are not maintenance and are instead improvement works to it, consideration needs to be given if the works require a special resolution,[18] and further, whether such action would be reasonable by the body corporate.[19]
• [48] Similarly, whether the body corporate's maintenance duties extend to changing battens, skylights and insulating the roof is also highly dependent on the circumstances.
• [49] On my preliminary review of the material currently in front of me, I am currently satisfied the applicant has raised a prima facie case against Motion 3.1 and 3.2.
• [50] For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not definitively determining that either the body corporate or the lot owner is responsible for the scope of the works. At this stage, the information available only supports the preliminary conclusion that the matter requires further consideration and raises a serious legal question. Parties might be well advised to obtain legal advice from those that specialise in these body corporate matters.

• [51] The third final order seeks for the body corporate to be directed to communicate and provide to all owners certain records and information. This order has little relevance to the interim order sought, so I will not comment further at this stage.

• [52] I am currently satisfied there is prima facie case for the second final order sought, relating to the validity of Motion 2, Motion 3.1 and Motion 3.2.
• [53] Before granting an interim order, I must balance the inconvenience to the respondent body corporate if I were to grant the interim relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be refused, against the inconvenience to the applicant if I were to not grant relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be granted.[20]
• [54] If the body corporate passes and acts on the motions, the body corporate could be bound to contracts with third parties for significant amounts and the final orders sought would be of little relevance. On this basis, I am satisfied the balance of convenience justifies interim relief.

• [55] While I am not currently satisfied there is a basis to say the whole of the meeting is invalid, I am currently satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious legal question in relation to the validity of Motions 2, 3.2 and 3.1. As acting on those motions may bind the body corporate to third party agreements that may not be easily undone, the application for interim orders is successful.

[3] SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 at [21].

[4] Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [622-623].

[5] Australian Broadcasting Corp v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, at [65], [19].

[6] See, for a BFP subdivision, Accommodation Module ss 188 and definition of damage which includes storm at s 185.

[7] Accommodation Module s 162. Although, this is not the only factor that will determine whether the committee has the power to consider the proposal.

[8] Accommodation Module, Sch 1 Dictionary, definition of 'relevant limit for major spending'.

[9] Email dated 18 November 2025, page 56 of the application.

[10] If above the relevant limit for committee spending, it requires approval at a general meeting.

[11] Accommodation Module, ss 79, 163(7).

[15] In a BFP subdivision, the boundary is defined by structural elements and is located at the centre of a floor, wall or ceiling separating a lot from other lots or common property. See Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C. For discussion on where the boundary lies in different types of roofing structures see Sanmore Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 48 at [30-33].

[16] Accommodation Module, s 170(1).

[17] Accommodation Module, s 170(2)(b)(ii).

[18] Accommodation Module, s 176.

[20] Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] citing Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [5].