//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/18
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-01-30
Original judgment source is linked above.
Caprice Peregian Springs [2026] QBCCMCmr 18
The Body Corporate for Caprice Peregian Springs (respondent)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)
Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)
ACCESS TO BODY CORPORATE RECORDS - where the applicant has requested access to CCTV footage of an incident in the scheme carpark where their vehicle was damaged - where the applicant says the body corporate has refused to provide them with a copy of the requested footage - whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances.
[1] Caprice Peregian Springs CTS 40422 (Caprice) is an 89-lot scheme situated in Peregian Springs, Queensland. It is governed by the Accommodation Module. The applicant, Benn Watkins, is the occupier of Lot 60 in the scheme.
[2] I understand the applicant had temporary permission to park their vehicle in the visitor's parking space at the scheme as the vehicle does not fit in their allocated garage space. The applicant explains that sometime between 20 April and 22 April 2025, their vehicle was damaged while parked in this space.
[3] The applicant says they requested access to the scheme's CCTV footage of the carpark on several occasions.[1] However, the body corporate refused to provide the footage to them first claiming there was 'no coverage' of the area where their vehicle was parked and later incorrectly stating that tenants have no right to access body corporate records.
[4] The applicant alleges that the scheme's caretaker was responsible for the damage to their vehicle. They say only the caretaker moves the green waste bin which was located behind their vehicle when it was damaged. In addition, they say the caretaker has not denied responsibility for the incident which amounts to an implied admission. They say as the incident took place on common property, the body corporate is responsible for the damage.
[6] The applicant bears the onus to establish that the orders they seek are warranted in the circumstances.
[8] This did not resolve the dispute and the applicant lodged this application for adjudication on 2 September 2025.
[9] The commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee and all other owners in the scheme. The committee and three other owners in the scheme made submissions in response.
[10] The applicant inspected the submissions made in response and submitted a reply.
[11] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[4]
[12] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, about (relevant to this dispute): a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[5]
[13] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the legislative dispute resolution provisions.
[14] The applicant says section 205(13)(e) of the Act entitles them, as an occupier in the scheme, to access body corporate records. They say they requested the CCTV body corporate records several times but the committee has refused to provide them with a copy of the footage.
[15] The applicant says the body corporate's refusal to provide them with a copy of the CCTV footage is impeding their ability to pursue compensation for the damage to their vehicle. They say no proper investigation into the incident has occurred on behalf of the body corporate.
[16] The applicant says the body corporate is engaging in misleading conduct. They allege it is not telling the truth about the cameras not working and there being no coverage of the area where the incident took place. The applicant further alleges the body corporate misrepresented their right to obtain body corporate records as a tenant and has thus obstructed them from exercising these.
[17] The committee says it has offered the applicant the option to review the available CCTV footage at the caretaker's office where all the footage from the scheme's cameras is stored. It says despite offering this access, the applicant has not requested to review the footage. The committee says it has also offered to provide the footage to the police if the applicant requires it for the dispute about their vehicle.
[18] The committee says that as the alleged incident occurred on common property at the scheme, it has been a willing participant in supporting the applicant to resolve the issue. It says it also tried to lighten the financial burden for the applicant by waiving the costs for them to review the footage.
[19] The committee goes on to explain that the applicant is aware that the CCTV cameras in use at the time of the incident did not cover the area where their vehicle was parked. It says during conciliation, the applicant requested footage from the camera which points in the direction of the visitor's carpark. However, it says it explained to them that this camera had been disconnected for some time. It says newer dome cameras had been installed at the scheme and it has provided a picture of the two cameras in question.
[20] The committee says that since conciliation, it has taken the initiative to broaden the scope of the areas captured by the CCTV at the scheme to include the area where the alleged incident took place. It says the incident occurred in the visitor's car parking space. It says residents are not usually permitted to park in this space however the applicant had been granted temporary permission to do so as their larger vehicle cannot fit in the allocated garage space. It says this temporary permission is due to expire soon.
[21] The committee says it previously declined to reimburse the applicant for the cost of repairing their vehicle as there is no evidence the body corporate is at fault for the incident. It says the applicant speculates that the scheme's caretaker is responsible for the damage. However, they have no evidence of this. In any event, the committee says that if it was proven the caretaker caused the damage to the vehicle it would be up to the caretaker to reimburse the applicant, not the body corporate.
[22] The owners of Lot 30 made a submission in support of the applicant. They say the applicant ought to have been given immediate access to the CCTV footage. They say they can see no reason why the applicant has been denied access for so long and that the matter could have been resolved several months ago. The owners of Lot 30 also express disappointment that the applicant was told that as a tenant, they were not entitled to access the CCTV footage. They say costs and/or penalties should be awarded to the applicant for the mismanagement of this matter.
[23] The owners of Lot 29 also made a submission in support of the applicant. They say the applicant's reasonable repeated requests for the CCTV footage were denied, delayed and obstructed. They say the committee's conduct in this matter raises serious concerns about transparency, procedural fairness and compliance with legislative obligations. They say the committee has failed in its duties to manage such matters with diligence, transparency and respect of the legislation.
[24] The owners of Lot 78 submit that the applicant needs to go review the CCTV footage at the caretaker's office. They say the costs associated with providing this convenience should not be passed on to other owners in the scheme.
[25] The applicant says they want a copy of the CCTV footage and that they asked for the footage to be downloaded onto a hard drive. They say that during conciliation, the body corporate agreed to provide the footage to them in this manner free of charge but it is now refusing to do so.
[26] The applicant says being informed they can review the footage at the caretaker's office is not equivalent to being given proper access to the records under section 205 of the Act and is not what was agreed during conciliation. They say it would not be safe for them to review the footage at the caretaker's office. They explain the caretaker has previously exhibited aggressive behaviours towards residents and it is unreasonable and unsafe to require them to attend in person to review the footage.
[27] The applicant says the caretaker, while being a contractor, performs duties on behalf of the body corporate and represents the scheme in that capacity. They say the incident took place on common property and accordingly, the body corporate is responsible for the damage to their vehicle.
[28] As a preliminary point, I note that both the applicant and the body corporate have referred to discussions which took place during the conciliation session. Section 252E(5) of the Act provides that evidence of anything said or done about the dispute in a department conciliation session is inadmissible in a proceeding. Accordingly, I have not had regard to any submissions or evidence either party has provided in respect of anything said or done in relation to the conciliation session.
[29] The applicant is seeking an order that the body corporate provide them with a copy of the CCTV footage covering the Caprice carpark between 20 April and 22 April 2025. The applicant says they are entitled to the footage in accordance with section 205 of the Act.
[30] Section 205 of the Act provides the following:
(1) This section provides for the giving of information by the body corporate for a community titles scheme from the body corporate's records to an interested person.
(2) Within 7 days after receiving a written request from the interested person accompanied by the fee prescribed under the regulation module applying to the scheme, the body corporate must do either or both of the following as requested by the interested person -
(a) permit the person to inspect the body corporate's records -
(i) if the person and the body corporate agree on a way to inspect the records - in accordance with the agreement; or
(ii) otherwise - in person at a reasonable time and place nominated by the body corporate;
(b) give the person a copy of a record kept by the body corporate -
(i) if the person and the body corporate agree on the way the copy will be given - in accordance with the agreement; or
(ii) otherwise - in the way prescribed under the regulation module applying to the scheme.
(3) However, the body corporate is not required to allow a person to inspect or obtain a copy of a part of a record under subsection (2) if the body corporate reasonably believes the part contains defamatory material.
(4) An interested person may ask the body corporate for a certificate under this section (a body corporate certificate) giving financial and other information about a lot included in the scheme.
(5) The request must be in writing and accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulation module applying to the scheme.
(6) Within 5 business days after receiving the request, the body corporate must give the person a body corporate certificate in the approved form for the lot.
(7) A person who obtains a body corporate certificate may rely on the certificate against the body corporate as conclusive evidence of matters stated in the certificate other than to the extent to which the certificate contains an error that is reasonably apparent.
(8) An interested person may ask the body corporate for stated financial information, of the type included in the approved form for a body corporate certificate, about a lot included in the scheme.
(9) The request must be in writing and accompanied by the fee required by the body corporate.
(10) The fee required under subsection (9) must not be more than the amount payable under subsection (5) for a request for a body corporate certificate for the lot.
(11) Within 5 business days after receiving the request, the body corporate must give the person the requested financial information.
(12) A person who obtains financial information under this section may rely on the information against the body corporate as conclusive evidence of the information other than to the extent to which the information contains an error that is reasonably apparent.
interested person, for a lot included in a scheme, means -
(a) an owner of the lot; or
(b) a mortgagee of the lot; or
(c) a buyer under a contract for the sale of the lot; or
(d) a person to whom an owner of the lot has given a disclosure statement under the Property Law Act 2023, section 99(1)(a); or
(e) another person who satisfies the body corporate of a proper interest in the information sought by the person under this section; or
(f) an agent of a person mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (e).
[31] An interested person may request access to body corporate records by asking to inspect the body corporate records or by asking to be given a copy of the records kept by the body corporate. The body corporate must provide access to its records in the way requested by the interested person within 7 days of receiving the written request from the interested person accompanied by the prescribed fee.[6]
[32] Schedule 6 of the Act provides the following definition for body corporate records:
records, for a body corporate, means the rolls, registers and other documents kept by the body corporate under this Act (including under the regulation module applying to the scheme).
See the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, schedule 1, definition document, for what may constitute a document.
[33] Schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act sets out the meaning of commonly used words and expressions in Acts. It provides the following in relation to documents:
(a) means a record of information, however recorded; and
(b) includes -
(ii) a thing on which there are marks, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and
(a) a thing from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or
(b) a record of information reproduced from a thing mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c) a record of information that exists in digital form and is capable of being reproduced, transmitted, stored or duplicated by electronic means.
[34] I am satisfied that CCTV footage is an electronic document and therefore also a document. However, to be a body corporate record, the CCTV footage must be a document "kept by the body corporate under this Act". Accordingly, I need to determine whether I am persuaded that the CCTV footage in question is a document kept by the body corporate 'under the Act'.
[35] I note that some adjudicators in previous decisions have held the view that any document being kept by a body corporate in the course of it exercising its functions is a body corporate record. However, adjudicator Ananda departed from this view in their recent decision in Calmwater Shores.[7] They concluded that a document kept by the body corporate can fall into two categories: (1) body corporate records and; (2) other documents of a body corporate (with the latter not being subject to section 205 of the Act).
[36] The change in interpretation turns on the words 'under this Act'. In her analysis, adjudicator Ananda carefully considered the meaning of 'under an enactment' and canvassed the various authorities of the meaning of this term and other similar phrasing. They found the law is still unsettled however, the general principles which can be gleaned from the relevant authorities are:
(a) Whether an action has been taken or a thing has been done 'under an enactment' must be determined based on the circumstances of each case considering the objects, scope, subject, language and structure of the applicable legislation.
(b) That the act done must be expressly or impliedly required or authorised by the enactment; and
(c) That the thing done must be given 'legal force or effect' by the enactment in question.[8]
[37] Adjudicator Ananda went on to consider the statutory purpose and context of the Act applicable in the body corporate context. Amongst other things, they noted that the legislation contemplates at least three distinct categories of body corporate property, namely body corporate assets, body corporate records, and 'other documents of a body corporate'. They found that this indicated the legislature intended to create a separate class of documents that a body corporate may keep but which are not part of its 'records'.[9]
[38] Adjudicator Ananda concluded that a document is only a body corporate record if it is either specifically identified as a document that must be kept by the body corporate under a provision of the legislation;[10] or any other document that in the circumstances of each case can be considered as being kept by the body corporate 'under the Act'.[11] Furthermore, any documents being kept by the body corporate which are not records are beyond the ambit of section 205 of the Act.
[39] I note that in the subsequent decision in Orminston Manor,[12] adjudicator Sutherland concurred with adjudicator Ananda's conclusions about the narrower meaning of what constitutes a body corporate record and therefore what documents must be given access to under section 205 of the Act. I also find myself persuaded by adjudicator Ananda's reasoning and, I am satisfied that there will be some documents, including electronic documents like CCTV, that will not automatically be body corporate records just because they are kept by the body corporate.
[40] In Calmwater Shores, adjudicator Ananda went on to consider whether the CCTV footage of common property as generally recorded is a body corporate record. They concluded that generally speaking, CCTV footage of this kind cannot rationally be considered a document kept 'by' or 'under the authority' of the Act. They were ultimately not satisfied that there was any connection between the contents of the Act and the keeping of the footage. They noted the Act does not make any provisions for the keeping of CCTV footage.
[41] In this current dispute, I understand the Body Corporate for Caprice has installed several cameras to monitor, amongst other areas, the scheme's common property carpark. And, after careful consideration, I am not satisfied the footage from those cameras is being kept by the body corporate 'under the Act'. While the Act may empower a body corporate to acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property,[13] it makes no provision for the keeping of CCTV footage. Accordingly, there is no connection between the Act and the body corporate's retention of the CCTV footage in question.
[42] In light of the above, I am not satisfied the CCTV footage being kept by the body corporate in this case is a body corporate record. Accordingly, I do not consider it is captured under the access provisions of section 205 of the Act. I am therefore unable to make order 1 as requested by the applicant.
Order 2: Request for reimbursement of repairs to vehicle
[43] The applicant is seeking an order that the body corporate reimburse them for the cost of repairing their vehicle. They allege it was the scheme's caretaker who damaged the vehicle and say the body corporate is therefore responsible for the cost of the repairs.
[44] The applicant strongly suspects it was the scheme's caretaker who damaged their vehicle. They say it is only the scheme's caretaker who moves the green waste bins from behind where the vehicle was parked when it was damaged. Furthermore, they say the caretaker has not denied responsibility for the damage and this is an implicit acceptance that they were the one who caused it.
[45] I note the onus is on the applicant to establish their case. While they have a strong suspicion it was the scheme's caretaker who damaged their vehicle, at this stage, they have no evidence to prove this allegation. I do not consider a silence or a 'non-denial' from the caretaker to be sufficient to conclude - on the balance of probabilities - that they were the one who caused the damage.
[46] As a general proposition, I consider it relatively uncontroversial that a body corporate would be responsible for damage caused by one of its agents (such as a contractor engaged by the body corporate). However, in this case, there is no corroborating evidence before me that it was the caretaker who damaged the applicant's vehicle. Accordingly, I am unable to make an order for the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for the damage.
[47] The applicant is seeking an order that the body corporate reimburse them $224.40, which they say is the costs they incurred in pursuing this matter, including sending correspondence and preparing the application.
[48] However, an adjudicator does not have general powers to award costs. The Act provides only two limited situations in which an adjudicator may make an order for costs these being: (1) against an applicant if an application is determined to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without reasonable substance;[14] and (2) against a respondent where a preceding conciliation application was ended because the respondent failed, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the department conciliation.[15]
[49] Neither of the above situations apply in the circumstances of this case and I am therefore unable to make an order for costs as requested by the applicant.
Order 4 and 5: Request for body corporate to pay a fine or penalty for failing to provide access to body corporate records and for misleading conduct
[50] The applicant is seeking an order for the body corporate to pay a fine or penalty for failing to provide access to documents after a lawful request has been made under the Act. They are also seeking an order that the body corporate pay a fine or penalty for misleading conduct. The applicant says the body corporate omitted relevant legislative provisions relating to section 205 of the Act from its correspondence with them and thereby obstructed their ability to exercise their rights as an occupier to access the body corporate records.
[51] Based the findings I have set out above, I am not satisfied the body corporate breached section 205 of the Act in failing to provide the requested documents as I do not consider that the CCTV footage in question is a body corporate record captured under section 205.
[52] In any event, I note that neither the commissioner nor an adjudicator has the power under the Act or regulation modules to issue fines or penalties. Accordingly, I do not have any the power to make an order for the body corporate to pay a fine or penalty. Any complaint about an alleged breach of a section of the Act or regulation modules can be pursued in the Magistrates Court under the Justices Act 1886.[16]
[53] For the reasons provided above, I am unable to make the orders sought by the applicant and have dismissed the application.
[54] However, this does not mean the applicant is left with no route to access the CCTV footage they have sought under this application. In Calmwater Shores, adjudicator Ananda considered in detail the proprietary rights lot owners have in relation to 'other documents' kept by the body corporate and whether owners have a right to access them.[17] While they may not be captured under the access provisions set out under section 205 of the Act, I am satisfied the body corporate does have obligations to lot owners in respect of these other documents.
[55] Section 94(2) of the Act provides that a body corporate must act reasonably in performing its functions including making, or not making, a decision. I am satisfied that an owner may request access to other documents being kept by a body corporate and a body must act reasonably in coming to its decision about such a request. As noted by adjudicator Ananda, it may be unreasonable for a body corporate to deny access to other documents it is keeping without reasonable justification for that decision.[18]
[56] This application was premised on the body corporate's failure to provide access to the CCTV footage in breach of section 205 of the Act. At this stage, the Body Corporate for Caprice has not yet been given an opportunity to turn its mind to making a decision in relation to the CCTV footage which is in accordance with its obligations under section 94(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I will refer this back to the body corporate and allow it an opportunity to do so.
[57] If the Body Corporate for Caprice remains of the view that it will not provide the applicant with a copy of the CCTV footage, it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh application to this office on the basis of an alleged breach of section 94(2) of the Act. An adjudicator can then consider whether a breach has occurred in this regard and whether an order is appropriate.
[58] I note the committee says there were no cameras directed at the visitor's car space where the applicant's car was parked at the time of the incident. However, the applicant does not appear to be satisfied that this is the case. The parties may wish to work together to ascertain whether there is any CCTV footage which may have captured the incident in question or which may be useful to ascertain who damaged the applicant's vehicle.
[1] On 22 April, 28 April, 9 May and 19 May 2025
[2] Application reference number: 0558-2025
[3] Conciliation certificate issued 1 August 2025
[5] Section 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act
[8] For a detailed review of the relevant authorities: see Calmwater Shores [2025] QBCCMCmr 330 at paragraphs [57] to [74]
[9] See Calmwater Shores [2025] QBCCMCmr 330 at paragraph [87]
[10] For this scheme the documents identified under sections 165(1)(a), 213, 215 to 219, and 220(1) of the Accommodation Module
[11] See Calmwater Shores [2025] QBCCMCmr 330 at paragraph [89]
[13] See a body corporate's general powers under section 95 of the Act
[14] Section 270(3) of the Act
[15] Section 280 of the Act
[16] See Plantation at Rainbow Accommodation Scheme [2020] QBCCMCmr 533 at paragraph [63]
[17] See Calmwater Shores [2025] QBCCMCmr 330 at paragraphs [103] to [120]
[18] See Calmwater Shores [2025] QBCCMCmr 330 at paragraph [116]