Camlock [2026] QBCCMCmr 41 (18 February 2026)

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES - whether the minutes of an annual general meeting should be amended to address various alleged irregularities.

COMMITTEE ELECTION - whether a committee election should be deemed void and a subsequent committee resolution overturned because the applicant did not hear an owner nominate one of the committee members.

BY-LAWS - whether a security camera and air conditioner were installed in breach of the by-laws; whether the body corporate should require their removal.

REASONABLENESS - whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by voting down motions to permit the applicant to install a security camera and air conditioner given it authorised another owner's security camera and air conditioner several months later.

Act, ss 94(2), 100(4); Standard Module, ss 38, 88(6)(a), 98(1)(a)(ii), 113(b), 117(3), 128(4)(b).

[1] Mr King of lot 6 complains of several irregularities at the annual general meeting held on 16 February 2025, and he claims that lot 5 installed an air conditioner and security camera without proper authorisation in breach of the by-laws. He seeks orders in the following terms:

Order 1.

19/2/25 - An order requiring the issued 2025 AGM minutes be amended as it is not a true and correct record.

Order 2.

19/2/25 - In the 2025 AGM. Election Of Committee.

An order requiring the committee member election be declared null and void. Including the body corporate properly review and respond to my concerns of the irregular nomination process and provide a transparent explanation of how the committee nomination was carried out in accordance with the Standard Module (SM).

Order 3.

19/6/25 - An order requiring the "Vote Outside Committee Meeting". VOCM. 1st July 2025 be declared null and void.

Order 4.

31/7/25 - An order requiring a contravention notice be issued to Lot 5. Instructing Lot 5. To remove the air conditioner and security camera.

Order 5.

19/2/25 - An order requiring motion 8. Air conditioning Installation - Lot 6 be approved.

Order 6.

19/2/25 - An order requiring motion 9. Security Camera Installation be approved.

[2] Mr King argues that the minutes of the 2025 AGM should be amended to address the following issues:

1. motion 1 confirmed the minutes of the 2024 AGM, yet those minutes also had several errors and irregularities
2. there was no list of persons with the right to vote at the AGM
3. motions 8, 10 and 15 included errors, and
4. Mr Walker was declared elected to the committee without being properly nominated.

[3] Mr King says the 2024 AGM minutes had the following errors:

1. Mr Pietersen was recorded as holding two proxies, whereas only one is permitted at a scheme with fewer than 20 lots like Camlock[1]
2. motion 1 confirmed the minutes of the 2023 AGM without mentioning they had been amended
3. an abstention on motion 3 was incorrectly recorded as a vote in favour
4. the explanatory schedule incorrectly stated there had been no audit in the last five years, whereas one was carried out on 19 December 2023
5. a vote against motion 8 was incorrectly recorded as a vote in favour, and
6. page 10 was missing from the body corporate manager's contract given effect pursuant to motion 8.

[4] These (2024) errors are all immaterial. In the same order:

1. While the minutes record Mr Pietersen as holding two proxies, he says lot 2 actually submitted its own voting paper to the AGM. Mr Pietersen provided a copy of it. But irrespective of whether that is correct, one less vote for or against any of the 2024 motions would have made no difference to the outcome.
2. Motion 1 confirmed the 2023 minutes "as previously forwarded to owners...as a true and correct record". The amended 2023 minutes were forwarded to owners some eight months prior to the 2024 AGM. This motion could have been referring to the amended minutes.
3. The motion was carried in either case, and was recorded in the minutes as carried.
4. This was an error in the explanatory note, not the minutes. It could not have affected the body corporate's decision at motion 3 not to have its statement of accounts audited. If the body corporate thought an audit was not warranted after five years without one, it surely would not have thought otherwise if it knew an audit had been carried out only two months beforehand. The motion was correctly recorded as carried.
5. The motion was carried in either case, and was correctly recorded in the minutes as carried.
6. Nevertheless, the motion was carried and was correctly recorded as such in the minutes.

[5] The alleged errors in the 2025 AGM minutes are also immaterial for the following reasons:

1. The substantive decisions of the 2024 AGM (i.e. whether the motions passed or not) were correctly recorded in the minutes.
2. While a list of persons with the right to vote should be available for inspection at the AGM,[2] there is no requirement to record it in the minutes.[3]
3. Mr King submitted motion 8 in the following form: "Installation of an air conditioner eastside or northside". The body corporate was required to include it on the voting paper "in the form in which it was submitted without amendment".[4] However, it appeared on the voting paper and subsequently in the minutes as subject to ten conditions that were presumably introduced by the committee or body corporate manager. That was irregular, but it is not a reason to amend the minutes. The minutes must include "the words of each motion voted on",[5] and the motion that was voted on included the ten conditions.
4. Mr King submitted motion 10 in the following form: "that grounds photo's lawn and gardens overgrown increase grounds contractors budget to accommodate." But in the voting paper and minutes, the "n" was omitted from the end of "overgrown". Mr King said he also submitted three photographs in support of the motion, but only two were circulated to other owners. Again, that is not a reason to amend the minutes. The motion that was voted on excluded the "n" and the minutes ought to reflect that.

I do not see that this minor error had any bearing upon the body corporate's decision anyway. Mr King submitted a transcript of the AGM and there was discussion of increasing the contractor's budget to address the overgrown state of the grounds. The missing "n" does not seem to have confused the proposal.

1. Mr King submitted motion 15 in the following form: "That 2024 AGM minutes voting is another year of incorrect recording! Motions 1, 3 and 8 are incorrectly recorded." But on the voting paper and in the minutes, "1, 3" was changed to "12". Again, those are the words of the motion that was voted upon, so the minutes are accurate. The motion was unenforceable and should have been ruled out of order in any event.[6]
2. Mr King says Mr Walker was not nominated by an owner to serve on the committee. Messrs Pietersen and Bone had been elected unopposed to the executive positions on the committee, leaving the committee one member short of the minimum three members. When that occurs, the chair must invite nominations from the floor of the meeting and accept nominations made by owners who are present, or in writing by owners not present.[7]

Mr King's transcript records the body corporate manager who was chairing the meeting as saying that Mr Walker, who was not present, asked Mr Pietersen, who was present, to nominate him. The nomination was accepted and Mr Walker became the third member of the committee.

Mr King's objection seems to be that he did not hear Mr Pietersen nominate Mr Walker. But there does not seem to be any serious suggestion that Mr Walker was not interested or eligible to serve on the committee, or that he did not genuinely have the support of Mr Pietersen (however that was expressed to the chair), or that Mr Pietersen was not entitled to nominate him. According to Mr King, Mr Walker served on the committee for some seven months after the AGM before resigning, suggesting he was eligible, interested, and had the support of his committee colleagues. I am not persuaded that there was any meaningful irregularity in the nomination of Mr Walker.

The minutes are only required to include the number of votes cast for each candidate.[8] In this case, no votes were necessary and the minutes simply list the names of the new committee members. I am not persuaded that requires amendment.

[6] Mr King asks that I declare the committee election void because Mr Walker was not properly nominated. As just discussed, I am not satisfied that he was not properly nominated.

[7] Mr King also seeks a "transparent explanation" of Mr Walker's nomination. The body corporate is under no legal obligation to provide one. It is only required to follow the statutory rules, not justify itself to sceptical owners.

[8] On 1 July 2025, the committee resolved to retrospectively approve lot 5's air conditioner and security camera. Mr King argues the resolution was void because the committee was "illegally formed" given his objection to the nomination of Mr Walker.

[9] I do not accept that Mr Walker was not properly nominated. But even if I did, the Act provides:

If persons, honestly and reasonably believing that they are the committee for the body corporate, make a decision while purportedly acting as the committee, the decision is taken to be a decision of the committee despite a defect in the election of 1 or more of the persons.[9]

[10] Mr King believes lot 5's air conditioner and security camera were installed in contravention of by-laws 5 and 8. Those by-laws state:

5 Damage to common property

_(1) A proprietor or occupier of a lot shall not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property except with the consent in writing of the body corporate, but this by-law does not prevent a proprietor or person authorised by the proprietor from installing - _

(a) any locking or other safety device for protection of his or her lot against intruders; or

(b) any screen or other device to prevent entry of animals or insects upon his or her lot.

(2) Provided that the locking or other safety device or, as the case may be, screen or other device is constructed in a competent manner, is maintained in a state of good and serviceable repair by the proprietor and does not detract from the amenity of the building.

8 Appearance of building

In the case of a building units plan, a proprietor or occupier of a lot shall not, except with the consent in writing of the body corporate, hang any washing, towel, bedding, clothing or other article or display any sign, advertisement, placard, banner, pamphlet or like matter on any part of his or her lot in such a way as to be visible from outside the building.

[11] By-law 8 is irrelevant. The air conditioner and security camera are not items of the sort listed in the by-law.

[12] Mr King offered no explanation of how the installation of the air conditioner and security camera involved marking, painting, or driving nails and screws into the common property. But even if it did, that is permissible with the consent of the body corporate, which lot 5 obtained on 1 July 2025.

[13] Mr King argues that the body corporate acted unreasonably when it voted down his motions seeking authority to install an air conditioner and security camera for the benefit of lot 6, as it permitted lot 5 to install an air conditioner and security camera. He points out that the same owners who voted against his motions voted in favour of the security camera and air conditioner for lot 5.

[14] The body corporate must act reasonably in the exercise of its functions.[10] If satisfied a decision not to pass a motion was unreasonable, I may give it effect.[11] Mr King bears the onus of demonstrating that the body corporate acted unreasonably with respect to his motions.

[15] His lone argument is that it was inconsistent to refuse to authorise his air conditioner and security camera while permitting lot 5's. But the decisions to authorise lot 5's air conditioner and security camera were made several months after the decisions against Mr King's motions 8 and 9. There was no inconsistency at the time of the AGM.

[16] Consequently, the application is dismissed in its entirety.

[1] Standard Module, s 128(4)(b).

[2] Standard Module, s 113(b).

[3] Standard Module, s 117(3).

[4] Standard Module, s 88(6)(a).

[5] Standard Module, s 117(3)(d).

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

[7] Standard Module, s 38.

[8] Standard Module, s 117(3)(f).

[9] S 100(4).

[10] Act, s 94(2).