IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY - BY-LAWS - MAINTENANCE - whether an owner should be permitted to install a deadlock on their front door - whether the body corporate must repair the front door frame - whether the body corporate should apologise for delays in deciding the requests - whether the body corporate must have a register of by-law approvals.

[1] This application is brought by the proprietor of Lot 60[1] against the body corporate. The applicant seeks orders to be allowed to install a deadlock on the front door of his lot, that the body corporate repair damage to the frame of his front door, that the body corporate apologise for delays in processing owner requests, and that the body corporate have a register of by-law approvals. I will consider whether orders are warranted.

[2] Cascade Condominiums GTP 70440 (Cascade Condominiums) is part of the Laguna Quays Resort in Mackay. Lot 60 at Cascade Condominiums is on building units plan of resubdivision 71528.

[1] An order to permit the installation of a deadlock in Lot 60's front door by an accredited locksmith in compliance with by-law clauses 4.1 (external appearance) and 25.2 (modifications), the installation to be at the Lot owner's expense.

[2] An order for the body corporate to arrange for the repair of the jemmy mark damage to Lot 60's front door frame, including any repainting, at the body corporate's expense.

[3] An order for the body corporate committee to apologise to the current Lot owner and previous Lot owner in writing and on the Residents' social media group for the one-year delay in processing the Lot owners requests.

[4] An order for the body corporate committee to keep, or arrange to keep, a publishable register of all approvals granted in accordance with the by-laws.:

[4] Laguna Quays Resort is established under the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (IRD Act). The IRD Act is known as a 'specified Act'.[2] The BUGT Act continues to apply to plans registered for a specified Act.[3]

[5] Part 5 of the BUGT Act concerns disputes. Section 77(1) provides a general power for referees to make orders. I am satisfied the applicant is the proprietor of a lot and seeks orders regarding the exercise or performance of an authority, duty or function conferred on the body corporate. Accordingly, I have jurisdiction to determine this application.

[6] This application was lodged on 15 October 2025. In the first instance I sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[4] which was subsequently amended.

[7] I invited submissions from the committee and all proprietors.[5] A submission was made on behalf of the committee. The applicant was given the submission and responded to it. I have now investigated the application,[6] including reviewing the submitted material.

[8] Referees have a general power to make an order to settle a dispute or rectify a complaint about the exercise or performance of a power, authority, duty, or function conferred or imposed by the BUGT Act.[7]

[9] Essentially, an applicant bears the onus of establishing that there has been a contravention in the exercise or performance of a power, authority, duty or function under the legislation and that an order is required to resolve the matter.

[10] In that context, I will consider in turn the four orders sought, and whether the applicant has established that they should be made.

[11] The material submitted by the parties discusses a range of matters that do not appear to be directly relevant to the orders sought. It is beyond my statutory role in determining this application to investigate or make findings on any of such other matters. Accordingly, I have not had regard to that material. If required, the parties could pursue those matters separately. But I would make the observation that the dispute resolution process established under the BUGT Act is rarely an effective forum for resolving interpersonal conflict.

[12] The applicant seeks permission to install a deadlock on the front door of his Lot 60.

[13] After incidents involving Lot 60 and the applicant's property in 2024, the applicant sought to install a deadlock. The applicant was a resident, but not the owner, of Lot 60 at the time. Accordingly, he sought the owner's approval for the change to the front door to in October 2024, which was given.

[14] The applicant then wrote to the body corporate asking if it had any interest or jurisdiction over the additional lock and, if so, for its consent. The body corporate manager (BCM) advised that requests were to be sent via the owner or property manager. In early November 2024 the owner advised the BCM of his endorsement of the request. The body corporate then sought information on the external appearance of the proposed deadlock. A photograph was provided. But it does not appear that there was any further communication or body corporate decision on the request at that time.

[15] After acquiring ownership of Lot 60, in mid-June 2025 the applicant told the BCM he wished to proceed with the deadlock. He noted another lot had a deadlock, but he could not find approval for it in committee minutes. Apparently, there was no response or decision and the applicant pursued various avenues of complaint. The applicant then submitted a motion in August 2025, seeking committee approval of the installation. He said it would be at his expense and noted the deadlock would be the same type as fitted to another lot. The applicant says there was no indication his motion would be discussed or circulated.

[16] The submission made on behalf of the committee says it agrees to the deadlock. It says at the time of the original request, it believed the front door was classed as a fire door such that a deadlock was not permitted. It says it a recent evaluation of its fire equipment found that unit doors were no longer classified as fire doors. Consequently, it says it can permit the requested deadlock.

[17] In response, the applicant queries why the fire door issue was not mentioned previously or that issue resolved earlier. The applicant also queries why other installations by committee members on common property were not used as a precedent for approval.

[18] It is concerning that the committee apparently failed to decide or respond to the request (whether made via the former owner or by the applicant) for an extended period of time or failed to communicate any decision. The body corporate is required to act reasonably in undertaking its functions.[8] While the body corporate does not necessarily need to respond to correspondence or decide motions immediately, it is arguably unreasonable to persistently ignore them.

[19] It is also evident that the committee does not now oppose the installation of the deadlock, such that on its face there is no continuing dispute. However, despite that, I do not consider I can make the order sought.

[20] The applicant's Lot 60 is on building unit plan (BUP) of resubdivision 71528. In a BUP, the boundaries of a lot are defined by reference to floors, walls, ceilings, or other referenced permanent structure.[9] Ordinarily, the boundary lies at the centre of a wall or other structure,[10] so the outer face of a door in a boundary wall is usually part of the common property. The applicant sought body corporate approval for the deadlock on the basis that it would be installed on common property. The body corporate did not dispute that.

[21] The applicant indicates the locksmith he engaged was reluctant to install the deadlock without body corporate approval because it could breach the by-laws. The applicant referred to various by-laws in his correspondence but in the grounds to the application he substantively refers to By-laws 4.1 and 25.2.

[22] In the current recorded by-laws,[11] By-law 4.1 says, in part, that proprietors shall not do anything to vary the external appearance of the lot without the prior written consent of the principal body corporate pursuant to the development control by-laws. By-law 25.2 says that a proprietor of a lot shall not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or otherwise damage or deface any structure that forms part of the common property (including the exterior of a lot) except with the consent in writing of the body corporate. It further says if that consent shall not be given if the proposed works will conflict with the development control by-laws including any consent required under the development control by-laws.

[23] The applicant (and possibly the committee) appears to believe the deadlock installation only required committee approval. That does not seem to be correct. If approval is required under the development control by-laws (and I make no finding on whether it is[12]) that would need to be sought from the principal body corporate for Laguna Quays Resort and not the body corporate for Cascade Condominiums or its committee. But if approval is only required from Cascade Condominiums to attach something to the common property outside a lot, By-law 25.2 refers to the body corporate and not just the committee. And where the by-law relates to approval of something that would amount to an improvement to common property, committee approval would not be sufficient.

[24] The BUGT Act provides that a body corporate must pass a resolution without dissent to authorise a proprietor to make an improvement in or on the common property (including to erect or install fixtures and fittings) for the benefit of the proprietor.[13]

[25] The by-laws are binding without limiting the operation of any other provision of the BUGT Act.[14] The Queensland Court of Appeal has accepted that the power to make by-laws "...does not authorise a by-law that is inconsistent with the Act in that it contradicts a provision in the Act or extends the ambit of a power whose parameters are specifically addressed by the Act."[15] As such, any by-laws relating to improvements to common property cannot displace the statutory requirement for approval by resolution without dissent.

[26] To extent that the applicant is seeking to install a deadlock on common property, I am satisfied that would constitute an improvement to the common property for the benefit of an owner. As such, the applicant would need to submit a motion to a general meeting seeking approval for the improvement.

[27] It is unfortunate that the committee apparently did not inform the applicant of the need to do so. If the committee has permitted other alterations to the common property without requiring the relevant owners to apply for approval by resolution without dissent, it should consider any need to invite those owners to submit motions for retrospective approval.

[28] If the applicant submits a motion for approval, and it does not pass, he could apply for the order of a referee to deem consent to have been given if he could establish that the body corporate unreasonably refused consent.[16] But where the applicant has not yet submitted a motion to a general meeting seeking approval by resolution without dissent as required, any question of whether the body corporate might unreasonably refuse consent is premature.

[29] If the outer face of the Lot 60 door is not on common property (for example, if the door is recessed within the boundary wall such that it is within the boundary of the lot), the provisions about improvements and alterations to common property would not be relevant. If the alteration were to change the appearance of the lot, approval might still be required under the development control by-laws. If not, no approval may be required at all. But the applicant has proceeded on the basis that the door is common property, has not established that it is not, and has not otherwise established that approval for the deadlock is not required under the by-laws.

[30] Next, the applicant wants the body corporate to repair a jemmy mark on the frame of the Lot 60 front door, including repainting it.

[31] The applicant says photographs of the front door damage were sent to the BCM on 19 September 2024. However, a copy of that email and the photograph (or any photograph in which jemmy marks are discernible) are not included in the application. In an email in late October 2024 to the BCM, the applicant said there appeared to be jemmy marks on the front door of Lot 60 and indicated it was reported in September. The email related to the deadlock issue and did not request the repair of the door. A subsequent email from the then owner of Lot 60 to the BCM in early November queried whether the reported damage to the outside of the door required attention and if so, what the intention was. The BCM said they would forward the owner's email to the committee for consideration and instructions. It is not evident that anything further occurred on the matter at that time. In following up the deadlock issue in June and August 2025, the applicant referred to the unrepaired jemmy marks on the front door frame but did not seek or propose action on that.

[32] The body corporate agrees to this request. It acknowledges that the maintenance and repair of the unit front doors rests with the body corporate. It says the repainting of front doors is currently being scheduled and any repair work would be incorporated into that.

[33] The applicant says external painting has occurred since the original notification of the damage, so queries why the committee did not arrange for the repair and painting previously.

[34] Pursuant to section 37(1)(c) of the BUGT Act, the body corporate must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair certain things. That includes the common property and each door where a side of the door is part of the common property. It is apparent that the frame of front door of Lot 60 is on common property, so the body corporate is responsible for maintaining it. The body corporate acknowledges that.

[35] However, I am not satisfied the applicant has provided sufficient basis to make an order.

[36] First, the applicant does not provide evidence of the alleged damage to the door frame to establish it is not currently in good and serviceable repair. He does not, for example, provide photographs in which I can identify any damage. Good and serviceable repair does not necessarily mean perfect or as new condition and the existence of 'marks' (as described in the correspondence) does not necessarily mean the frame is not in good or serviceable repair. The body corporate does not specifically comment on the existence or extent of the alleged damage to the door frame.

[37] Second, the applicant has not evidenced that he asked the body corporate to repair the door frame. It does not appear that the former owner requested that the door frame be repaired, as distinct from simply asking if it needed to be.

[38] The statutory obligation on the body corporate to maintain common property does not only arise if an owner or occupier has asked for repairs. But where the applicant has not demonstrated that he asked for repairs or showed the body corporate that repairs were required to ensure the door frame was in good or serviceable repair, he has not established the existence of a dispute on this point.

[39] Finally, where the body corporate says any necessary repairs will occur when scheduled painting of front doors occurs, the applicant does not establish the need for an order.

[40] The applicant wants the committee to apologise to the current and previous owners in writing and on the resident's social media group for the delay in processing owners' requests.

[41] The application does not include any explanation for why this order could or should be made. I am unclear from the submitted material whether the applicant is seeking an apology only about the body corporate's failure to decide or approve the deadlock, or on other matters.

[42] The body corporate does not agree to this order. The committee submission notes the applicant was a resident since 2019 but only became an owner in April 2025. It says before then, any requests came through the owner. As the applicant has been an owner for less than a year, it says it is impossible for there to have been a 1-year delay. The submission then discusses other circumstances and incidents involving the applicant, and objects to the applicant's conduct and treatment of others.

[43] In response the applicant says it is unclear whether the committee submission is trying to explain why they believe an apology is unwarranted, or trying to prove their actions or inaction is warranted by discrediting him. The applicant comments on some of the matters discussed in the committee submission, and disputes numerous assertions in it.

[44] The issuing of apologies is not contemplated as a remedy in the BUGT Act. I concur with the views of referees in previous orders on the subject of apologies.[17] Having regard to the power of an adjudicator to make an order, the applicant does not establish how requiring the committee to make or publish an apology would settle any live dispute or rectify any current complaint in this case. In the absence of any such substantiation, I am not convinced that requiring an apology would be of any real assistance in resolving any ongoing conflict. A mandatory apology is likely to be insincere and tokenistic. In the circumstances, while I acknowledge the applicant's frustration, I decline to order an apology.

[45] Finally, the applicant wants the committee to keep a publishable register of all approvals granted in accordance with the by-laws.

[46] The applicant does not provide any explanation for why this order could or should be made. In the absence of any clear grounds, I assume the request arises because the applicant says he was unable to ascertain if a deadlock installed on another lot had been approved because of the lack of a central register of approvals given under the by-laws or in meeting minutes.

[47] The body corporate agrees to a register. It says most of the by-laws are 30 years old and in need of replacement. It says work has been ongoing with its lawyers for 6 months on a substantial re-write of the by-laws. When these have been approved and published, it says it will go through all existing approvals and update them against the new by-laws. It says the resulting register will be made available on request.

[48] In response, the applicant comments on the current by-laws and compliance with them. He says an order should take effect now, based on the current by-laws and approvals recorded. He says that to wait until new 'unconsulted' by-laws take effect is a delaying tactic. He queries why the body corporate does not have a list of existing approvals.

[49] Notwithstanding the body corporate's agreement, I do not consider there is any legal basis for me to make the order sought. The body corporate can keep a register of approvals and it may well be desirable for it to do so. But there is nothing in the legislation that requires it to.

[50] The legislation sets out the requirements for the body corporate to keep records,[18] but this does not specify records of authorisations under the by-laws or the legislation. The legislation provides for prescribed persons (including proprietors) to obtain (by making a written request and paying a prescribed fee) information and inspect certain body corporate records,[19] but that does specify a requirement to compile a register of authorisations.

[51] The legislation also provides for interested persons (including proprietors) to obtain (by making a written request and paying a prescribed fee) a body corporate certificate containing financial and other information about a particular lot.[20] The regulations then set out the information that must be included in the certificate.[21] That information includes improvements in or on the common property for which the proprietor is responsible for maintaining under section 37A(2) of the BUGT Act.[22] But it does not require other authorisations made under the by-laws to be included.

[52] Given the circumstances, including where there is no statutory obligation on the body corporate to maintain a register of approvals given under the by-laws, the applicant has not established the basis for the fourth order to be made.

[53] For the reasons outlined, the applicant has not satisfied me that the orders sought should be made. I have dismissed the application.

[1] It seems Lot 60 is also referred to as unit 1451.

[2] Section 326 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

[3] Pursuant to section 325(2)(a) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and section 5A of the BUGT Act

[5] Section 73(1)(c) and (d) of BUGT Act

[8] Noting sections 27(3) and (4) of the BUGT Act

[11] Most relevantly, those recorded on 1 March 1993, titles dealing number 601299049.

[12] I note that, pursuant to section 179B of the IRD Act, I have no jurisdiction to determine a dispute about the application of or compliance with a development control by-law.

[15] The Proprietors - Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192, para 69

[17] For example, Rosebank [2018] QBCCMCmr 251, Bell Park [2017] QBCCMCmr 196

[21] Section 10A of the Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008

[22] Section 10A(1)(r) of the Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008