Casino Towers [2026] QBCCMCmr 86

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 MOTION - whether a motion to change billing arrangements for chilled water for air conditioning in lots was valid - whether the new arrangement complies with the legislative requirements for utility service charges - whether the consideration of the motion was procedurally defective - whether the decision was unreasonable.

Act, ss 94, 195, 196; Standard Module, ss 87, 90

[1] This application is about charging for chilled water energy at the scheme. It seems all lots are connected to a centralised ducted air conditioning system and are supplied with chilled water from a chiller plant to operate the air conditioning in the lots.

[2] At its annual general meeting (AGM) on 12 September 2025 the body corporate resolved (Motion 11) to change the billing arrangements for chilled water energy. The motion, submitted by the committee, proposed that the body corporate cease issuing chilled water invoices to individual occupants and instead on-charge recovery costs directly to owners. The motion detail included that charging be based on the contribution schedule lot entitlements for each lot. There was no explanatory material about the motion. Motion 11 passed with 47 votes for, 23 against, and 5 abstentions.

[3] The applicant disputes the AGM resolution. They say it contravenes section 195 of the Act and was procedurally defective. They want Motion 11 to be invalidated and the body corporate to continue to bill for chilled water based on metered consumption.

[4] The question to decide then is whether AGM Motion 11 contravenes the legislation.

[5] Casino Towers community titles scheme 34087 (Casino Towers) is a 214-lot scheme in Brisbane. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 148188.

1. The resolution of Motion 11 on the 12 September 2025 AGM of Casino Towers CTS 34087 is declared void and of no effect.

2. The Body Corporate must continue to bill chilled water based on actual consumption recorded by the existing individual meters for each lot.

3. Any chilled water charges levied under the bulk billing model prior to the adjudicator's order be reversed and refunded to affected owners.

[7] 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]

[8] This application was lodged on 1 October 2025.

[9] The Commissioner directed the body corporate to distribute the application to all owners and the committee with an invitation to make a submission.[3] Some 14 submissions were received. The applicant obtained and responded to the submissions.[4]

[10] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions.[6]

[11] I note that the body corporate manager gave written confirmation to the Commissioner that the notice was distributed to the committee and all owners. One submitter says they did not receive the notice of application directly, but only via another owner. However, I have not been given any evidence that any owner did not directly receive the notice because of some failure of the body corporate to distribute the notice to the notified address for owners or that any owner was not ultimately made aware of the application and able to respond to it.

[12] The body corporate opposes the application. It says the applicant has not discharged their onus of proof. I will detail the body corporate's response to the specific issues raised by the applicant in my analysis. More generally, the body corporate argues the application should be dismissed as misconceived and without substance. It says it is appropriate that a costs order (of $2,000) be made in favour of the body corporate to partially compensate the body corporate for its costs. The submission also describes the context of the dispute. It says:

1. The cost of running the air conditioning system is the electricity consumed by the chiller plant.
2. An historic attempt to adopt a user pays resulted in convoluted billing system. Every month reports are generated on the power consumed by the chiller plant, the total time and cost of power usage for the chiller, and the operating time for the air conditioning in each unit. It then obtains the monthly time accrual, multiplies the monthly time usage per lot by the unit size and a pre-determined static value, divides that by the total building numbers to obtain a percentage, multiplies the percentage usage per lot by the total kilowatt hour usage of the chiller, and multiplies the prevailing kilowatt hour energy rate. It then produces a billing report and issues individual invoices to each owner.
3. The billing system relies on components that are at the end of their serviceable life, obsolete, not supported by manufacturers, unreliable, and cannot be repaired.
4. The system components lack features required for modern operational needs.
5. The billing system has not been fully operational for at least 2 years, at about 85% efficacy, and is unlikely to ever be able to be fully operational.
6. The billing system was placing a huge administrative and cost burden on the body corporate in attempting to recover costs from owners whose lots are not being monitored due to outages or failures in the system components. Also, each lot was metered and billed individually even for trivial amounts.
7. In the 2025 financial year the cost to operate the chiller was $76,873.15, while the cost to administer the billing system and issue over 200 invoices a month was $43,164. In addition, there were debt collection costs, write-offs where debt recovery was not practical, and $10,000 to maintain and repair the billing system.
8. About two-thirds of the electricity usage for the chiller is consumed by the third of lots in the short-term letting pool. That usage is paid based on a single invoice, so the body corporate incurs no material cost to recover it. It was spending over $43,000 in administrative costs to recover the balance of around $30,000 a year.
9. In the 2026 budget, there was no additional levy cost to owners from ending the separate chilled water billing. Instead, levies are lower.
10. It was given four options on how to proceed. These were: a new direct energy metering system; a flow-based calculation system; a runtime-based calculation system; or a fixed share system (based on lot entitlements).
11. It was advised that the first two options were best practice or fairer. But they are prohibitively expensive. It has been estimated that the cost to upgrade or replace the billing system components to continue some form of user pays system will cost the body corporate between $1 million and $1.3 million.

[13] Eleven submissions from the owners of 13 lots support the application and oppose AGM Motion 11. Comments in those submissions include:

1. The body corporate is not acting in the best interests of owners and occupiers.
2. The motion contravenes sections 195 and 196 of the Act. Chilled water is individually metered, and the body corporate is required to charge utility services based on consumption where individual meters exist.
3. They have a working meter system that charges each unit for what it uses. They question why they would move away from something that fairly distributes the cost.
4. It is not fair that owners not using the air conditioning system must meet the costs of others. They question why they should pay for more than they are personally using. One says they rarely use air conditioning, while others use it constantly.
5. Owners will be financially disadvantaged. Some note they are paying more now.
6. They were satisfied with the existing billing arrangements.
7. The change will create legal problems with current leases, which are now invalid. The bulk billing may result in tenant disputes or refund obligations for investors.
8. The AGM lacked procedural fairness.
9. They object to the lack of communication, consultation, and discussion before the AGM and at the AGM itself.
10. There was insufficient information on the cost and implications for owners to make an informed decision. There was no explanation of why this change was required or the gain for the community.
11. One says they contacted the committee which said flat rate billing was cheaper without the billing service, even if consumption increased. They also said the committee was spending considerable time dealing with unpaid water bills.
12. One says flat rate billing will encourage people to consume more, and so the consumption costs will increase. There will also be an environmental impact.
13. The proposal was not passed by a majority of owners or made known to all owners. Every owner should be to vote for such a change.

1. One says they do not use many of the facilities that the body corporate supplies, but they are included in the costs the community covers. They say the chilled water is simply another amenity that the community could enjoy and pay for via their levies.
2. The other says it costs to bill all owners every month and to maintain the 20-year-old metering system. They say the majority decision should stand.

[15] In response, the applicant says that from a review of the material provided by the body corporate, not only should Motion 11 be ruled out as unfair and unreasonable but an independent sub-committee is 'urgently' required to organise quotes and provide full information to owners before the system fails completely. The response includes:

1. Equal-share chilled water billing is unfair, unreasonable, and not best practice.
2. If the information provided to owners before and at the AGM was sufficient, they query why the submission relied on additional material.
3. If the material relied on was obtained before the AGM, the committee knowingly withheld critical information from owners. If it was obtained after the AGM, it means the committee proposed a major change without understanding the technical risk. Either is a serious failure of governance and transparency.
4. There is a pattern of the committee not providing sufficient information to enable informed decision-making.
5. The information provided confirms a serious problem that needs investigation.
6. The committee sought to change the billing method without disclosing that significant upgrades were likely required. If owners had known this, they might have questioned whether shared billing was appropriate or whether alternatives should be considered. Withholding this information might have influenced the outcome. Future decisions on upgrades will be shaped by a billing model that owners approved without a full knowledge of the facts.
7. The time required to organise quotes, review options, and circulate information to owners will be significant. Delaying this process risks leaving owners without functioning air conditioning.
8. They want an independent sub-committee established to investigate upgrade options and report to all owners. They seek orders in this regard. They further seek orders for quotes to be obtained with a detailed scope of works.

[16] The applicant raises several issues with AGM Motion 11. I will discuss these in turn. I will then discuss the body corporate's claim for costs and further matters raised by the applicant.

[17] The first issue is whether the charging arrangement adopted by Motion 11 contravenes the requirements of the Act for utility services.

[18] The applicant says section 195 of the Act requires that, where a utility service is separately measured for a lot, the body corporate must charge owners based on the amount supplied to that lot. They say the chilled water system is individually metered. They say the bulk billing model ignores meter readings and charges all owners equally, contravening section 195.

[19] To the extent that owner submissions address this issue, they support the applicant.

[20] The body corporate says section 195 of the Act does not apply. It says:

1. The utility service is the supply of electricity to the common property for the operation of the chiller.
2. The cost of that utility service is not separately measured for its supply to each lot nor charged to each lot by the utility service provider.
3. The utility service provider bills the body corporate for the cost of the utility service supplied to common property.
4. Neither the body corporate nor the utility service provider measures the electricity being used by each lot, as it is the chiller and not the lot that uses the power.
5. The billing system generates an estimate of a lot's contribution to the electrical costs used by the chiller, based on the runtime recorded for the air conditioning unit in each lot.
6. The electricity used by the operation of the air conditioning unit in each lot is billed and measured separately from the electricity costs for the chiller.

[21] The body corporate then says section 196 of the Act applies where there is no practical way for a utility service provider to measure the extent to which a utility service is supplied to each lot and the common property and the supply of services is charged according to usage and not on the basis of the value of land. It says in those circumstances, owners share the costs proportionate to the contribution schedule lot entitlement. Accordingly, it says Motion 11 is consistent with section 196 of the Act.

[22] The applicant did not respond to the body corporate's submissions on this point.

[23] The Act provides as follows about the charging for utility services.

1. Utility services separately measured, supplied and charged

(1) The body corporate for a community titles scheme is liable for a charge for water, gas, sewerage, cleansing or another utility service supplied to the common property if the charge is -

(a) for a utility service that is separately measured for its supply to the common property; and

(b) separately charged to the body corporate; and

(c) calculated in a way that is unrelated to the value of land.

The body corporate is liable for charges made by the local government for water, separately measured and supplied to the common property for gardens or a swimming pool, and, if appropriately levied by the local government, for a flat rate fee applying in relation to the supply of water to the common property.

(2) The owner of a lot included in the scheme is liable for a charge for water, gas, sewerage, cleansing or another utility service supplied to the lot if the charge is -

(a) for a utility service that is separately measured for its supply to the lot; and

(b) separately charged to the lot owner; and

(c) calculated in a way that is unrelated to the value of land.

1. Utility services not separately charged for

(1) This section applies to a community titles scheme if -

(a) there is no practicable way available to a utility service provider to measure the extent to which the utility service is supplied to -

(i) each lot included in the scheme; and

(ii) if the utility service is also supplied to the common property - the common property; and

(b) the supply of the utility service to scheme land is charged according to usage, and is not charged for on the basis of the value of land.

(2) A lot owner is liable to the utility service provider for a share of the total amount payable for the provision of the utility service to scheme land.

(3) The share is proportionate to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for the lot.

(4) However, the body corporate may, by arrangement with the utility service provider, take on liability for owners or occupiers of the lots for the utility service supplied for the benefit of owners or occupiers.

(5) If an arrangement is in force under subsection (4), the utility service provider can not separately charge the owners or occupiers for the utility service to which the arrangement relates, and the body corporate must satisfy the liability to the utility service provider out of -

(a) the contributions paid by lot owners to the body corporate under the regulation module applying to the scheme; or

(b) a levy imposed on the individual lot owners in the way stated in subsection (6).

(a) for lots for which the body corporate has a way of measuring the extent to which the utility service is supplied to each lot - according to the extent of supply; and

(b) for lots for which the body corporate does not have a way of measuring the extent to which the utility service is supplied to each lot -

(i) equally between the lot owners; or

(ii) proportionately among the lot owners according to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for each lot.

(a) an arrangement is in force under subsection (4); and

(b) the body corporate fails to satisfy the liability to the utility service provider under the arrangement by the day the liability becomes payable.

(8) If the utility service provider is a local government, the unpaid amount of the liability becomes an overdue rate under the Local Government Act 2009 that is payable proportionately by each lot owner according to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for the lot.

(9) If the utility service provider is MEDQ, the unpaid amount becomes a special rate or charge under the Economic Development Act 2012 that is payable proportionately by each lot owner according to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for the lot.

(10) If the utility service provider is not a local government or MEDQ -

(a) the unpaid amount is payable proportionately by each lot owner, according to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for the lot; and

(b) the amount payable by a lot owner is a charge on the lot.

(11) For applying the Economic Development Act 2012, section 117 for the purposes of subsection (9), the reference in the section to the land is taken to be a reference to each lot.

(12) Subsection (10) is in addition to any other remedy the utility service provider has for recovery of the unpaid amount.

(13) This section does not apply to a community titles scheme established after 1 January 2008 in relation to a utility service that is water reticulation or supply if devices for separately measuring the supply of water to each lot and the common property are installed on the scheme land -

(a) after 1 January 2008; and

(b) under a permit issued under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2018 or in relation to a compliance request made after 31 December 2007 under the repealed Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002.

liability, for an owner or occupier of a lot for which a utility service is supplied for the benefit of the owner or occupier, does not include the owner's or occupier's liability for a fee charged by the utility service provider for providing the utility infrastructure for the service.

utility service provider includes a local government in whose local government area scheme land is located but does not include -

(a) a body corporate manager, service contractor or letting agent; or

(b) an associate of a person mentioned in paragraph (a).

[24] To the extent that the body corporate is in effect passing onto owners the cost of the electricity used to operate the chiller plant to generate chilled water, that electricity is a utility service that is supplied to the common property and charged to the body corporate by a utility service provider. It is separate to the electricity used by owners (including to run their air conditioners) and billed to them by their own utility service provider. Owners are not directly liable to the utility service provider for the supply of electricity to the common property to run the chiller plant.

[25] Presumably the utility service provider can measure the supply of electricity to the common property. But there is clearly no way for the utility service provider to measure how much of the need for the energy required to operate the chiller plant is generated by the air conditioning usage in each lot.

[26] Under the 'user pays' model, it could be that the body corporate was charging owners for a utility service that it supplied to lots, being chilled water, rather than simply recovering contributions to the total electricity costs incurred in operating the chiller. But it is not evident the charges incurred by owners under the 'user pays' model were simply based on a metered measurement of the actual chilled water supplied to or used by each lot. Rather, it appears to have been an estimate based on the recorded use of the air conditioning units in each lot. Advice provided by the body corporate refers to that billing method as 'inherently imprecise'.[7] I am also unclear if the requirements for charging for the supply of a service by the body corporate were met under that arrangement.[8]

[27] I am satisfied on the submitted evidence that section 195 of the Act does not apply to the disputed billing arrangements.

[28] The applicant has not refuted the body corporate's submission that the new arrangements pursuant to Motion 11 comply with section 196 of the Act. If that is the contention, the applicant has not explained or substantiated it. To the extent that section 196 of the Act applies, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is being contravened.

[29] The second issue is whether the AGM was procedurally compliant, including whether owners were given sufficient information to make an informed decision on Motion 11.

[30] The applicant says the AGM notice failed to provide sufficient explanatory material, supporting data, or analysis to enable owners to make an informed decision and the committee failed to provide reasoning for the motion. They say the committee failed to respond to their request before the AGM to withdraw the motion.

[31] Some other owners also allege procedural issues with the AGM, including the adequacy of information provided, the lack of consultation and discussion, and the level of voting.

[32] The body corporate says Motion 11 was carried decisively. It says:

1. The applicant does not identify any specific information or fact that ought to have been disclosed and was not or explain how that impacted on the ability of owners to make a fully informed decision.
2. The applicant has provided no evidence, and it is not the case, that any owner was misled, confused or overborne; that legal advice was obtained and not provided to owners; that there are material disadvantages in Motion 11; or that the committee knew of any material disadvantages and did not tell owners of them.
3. Not every motion requires explanatory material. Motion 11 was sufficiently clear to allow owners to understand the effect of the motion if carried.
4. Motions are not considered in a vacuum. Owners have the benefit of their existing knowledge of how chilled water costs are billed, along with the detail in the motion.
5. If owners are not satisfied with the information they can vote against the motion.
6. The committee was under no obligation to respond to the applicant's demand for the withdrawal of the motion and its election not to do so has no bearing on the validity of the resolution. If dissatisfied, they could vote against the motion.
7. The committee was under no obligation to provide an explanation of the motion at the AGM. If the owner was dissatisfied, they could vote against it.

[33] In response, the applicant maintains that the information given to owners was insufficient.

[34] Written notice of a general meeting must be given to all owners.[9] That notice must include things such as the details of the meeting, the agenda, voting paper, and any required explanatory material.

[35] The applicant cites section 90 of the Standard Module. That section simply details when explanatory material must be included in a meeting notice and how it must be presented. It does not mandate the provision of explanatory material for all motions. It does not generally relate to the adequacy of the content of any explanatory material.

[36] However, there is considerable case law about the adequacy of notice for a general meeting and the duty to inform owners about the meaning and effect of motions.[10] The Queensland District Court has said:[11]

There is certainly an obligation to give proper notice of what is actually to be considered by the meeting, and to point out the relevant consequences of the approval of the resolution. If there is a failure to give proper notice of the meeting, which may occur if the notice of the proposed resolution is misleading as to what is really proposed, or its effect and implications, then that may well impact on the validity of the resolution, because in such circumstances there was either no valid notice of the meeting or no valid notice of the proposed resolution.

[37] However, in that matter the Court cited another case in regard to fiduciary duty that said:[12]

The need to make full and fair disclosure must be tempered by the need to present a document that is intelligible to reasonable members of the class to whom it is directed, and is likely to assist rather than to confuse. ... In the circumstances the court should not be quick to conclude that a contravention ... has occurred because other information could have been provided that was not. The need for the applicants to establish the materiality of errors and omissions is an important step in the proof of their claims.

[38] Accordingly, the Court said the onus was on the party alleging a breach to identify what was not disclosed, and how that amounted to a failure to make full and fair disclosure.[13]

[39] The applicant says the committee refused to respond to their request before the AGM to withdraw the motion. Notice of the AGM was apparently given on 22 August 2025. On 28 August 2025 the applicant wrote to the committee objecting to the motion and requesting its withdrawal. The applicant apparently received no substantive response.

[40] It could be argued that the committee failed to act reasonably in not responding to the applicant's correspondence. But if that was the case, I do not consider it affects the validity of Motion 11 itself. Also, the body corporate could have chosen to withdraw the motion if it was on notice of a genuine issue with its validity. But the applicant has not established that the committee had a statutory obligation to withdraw the motion because the applicant questioned the motion or asked the committee to withdraw it.

[41] In regard to the adequacy of information about Motion 11, a motion is not invalid simply because there is no explanatory note. It is not invalid because the rationale or motivation for proposing the motion is not explained by the proponent. It is not invalid because all information or documentation that might be relevant to the issue or that is in the possession of the motion proponent is not included in the meeting notice or otherwise provided to voters.

[42] In writing to the committee before the AGM, the applicant referred in general terms to the absence of explanatory material and the need for supporting data, analysis, the reasons for and against, and the committee's recommendation. But the application does not explain the detail of what information they consider should have been provided or why that was required for voters to understand the meaning and effect of Motion 11.

[43] The AGM notice did not explain why the committee was proposing Motion 11 or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of it. It may have been preferable if the committee had done so. But the obligation on the body corporate in the meeting notice was only that owners were on notice of the meaning and effect of the motion. That is a different matter.

[44] Ostensibly, the intent of Motion 11 was that the previous arrangement for invoicing occupants for chilled water would change to one where owners contributed through the administrative fund contributions based on their contribution schedule lot entitlements. The language of the lengthy motion was somewhat convoluted. Arguably, it could have been expressed in clearer terms. But none of the submitters indicate they did not understand the meaning or effect of the motion. And I have not been given evidence to substantiate that any information given to voters about Motion 11 was incorrect or misleading. Rather, the substantive objection (aside from the increase in personal costs) appears to be that owners did not understand the justification for, or benefits arising from, the proposal in the motion.

[45] If owners were not convinced from the information in Motion 11 and their own knowledge of the scheme's circumstances as to the need for proposal in the motion, they could simply vote against it. Some 23 owners did. But neither the applicant nor the submissions have evidenced that any of the 47 owners who voted in favour of the motion were confused by it or misunderstood the effect of it. Moreover, no evidence has been provided that Motion 11 would have been lost if voters had been given additional or different information.

[46] Some submitters object to the lack of consultation or discussion on the proposal before the AGM. There is nothing to prevent a body corporate consulting or discussing proposals before voting on them. There is nothing to prevent voters querying a notified motion or raising concerns about it with the committee or other voters. But the legislation only requires owners to be notified of a motion through a meeting notice and then to be given an opportunity to vote on it (if eligible to vote). The legislation does not require a body corporate (or any other motion proponent) to consult beyond that.

[47] In regard to discussion at the AGM itself, the legislation does not specifically provide for debate on motions, although arguably a limited right to do so is implied in the legislative framework.[14] I am unclear from the submitted material the extent to which debate on the motion at the AGM was sought or refused before voting occurred. But if it was, I have been given no evidence that was likely to materially affected the outcome of voting. That is particularly so given the comparatively small number of voters present at the AGM.

[48] One submitter says that to their knowledge the proposal was not made known to all owners. If the submitter is asserting that not all owners received the notice of the AGM, that claim is not explained or substantiated.

[49] Some submitters indicate a concern that only 47 of the 214 owners voted in favour of the motion so it was not passed by a majority, or that all owners should be required to vote for such a change. That misapprehends legislative framework. All owners must be notified of a meeting and be able to vote (if eligible). But voting is not compulsory. Most general meeting motions are determined by ordinary resolution, although the legislation determines that some are so significant that they must be decided by resolution without dissent or special resolution.[15] Motion 11 was listed on the agenda as requiring an ordinary resolution and I can see no reason why that was not correct. The legislation prescribes that a motion is passed by ordinary resolution if the votes counted for the motion are more than the votes counted against the motion.[16] That was clearly the case for Motion 11.

[50] Ultimately, neither the limited grounds to the application nor the further matters canvassed in the supporting submissions substantiate that the conduct of the AGM or the consideration of Motion 11 were procedurally defective.

[51] Next the applicant queries the reasonableness and equity of Motion 11. They say the owners of 1-bedroom units will subsidise the higher chilled water usage of larger units. They say that is inconsistent with the principle that contributions should be proportionate to the costs attributable to each lot. They also say it is inconsistent with the body corporate's duty to act for the benefit of all owners. They further argue that the lack of information given to owners, and the refusal to engage in discussion, means the decision was unreasonable.

[52] The submissions from owners in support of the application assert Motion 11 is unfair.

[53] The body corporate disputes that smaller lots will subsidise larger lots. It says the contribution schedule lot entitlements for the scheme are not equal for all lots. As smaller lots have lower contribution amounts, it says they will contribute proportionately less to the cost of the chiller. It further says there is no evidence that larger lots will necessarily use air conditioning more than smaller lots.

[54] The body corporate further refers to the cost of over $1 million to implement or replace a user pays system, for an annual cost recovery of around $90,000. It says that approach is cost prohibitive. It says the approach taken was, in the circumstances, commercial, sensible, in the financial best interests of owners as a whole, and reasonable.

[55] The body corporate further disputes that the proposal will encourage excessive air conditioning use. It says owners will still incur the cost of electricity to run their air conditioning as charged by their electricity provider.

[56] Under section 94(2) of the Act, a body corporate must act reasonably in undertaking its functions, including in making or not making a decision.[17] The obligation on a committee in section 100(5) of the Act is narrower; it must act reasonably in making a decision. The person disputing a decision bears the onus of establishing it was unreasonable.

[57] The test for the reasonableness of a body corporate decision is an objective one, based on a consideration of all relevant circumstances in the case.[18] In one matter, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal noted that:[19]

A reasonable action, including a decision, is not necessarily the correct or preferable one but is made in good faith in the overall best interests of most owners."

A legally reasonable decision is not a uniquely right one. It involves matters of degree about which contrary - even opposite - conclusions can be reasonably reached on the same body of evidence by different lines of reasoning or by reference to other determinants without either being demonstrably right or manifestly wrong.

[58] If a body corporate or its committee makes an unreasonable decision, an adjudicator may intervene to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve the dispute, including overturning the decision. But it is not for an adjudicator to supplant the body corporate's decision-making role or to impose their own views on what might have been preferable.[21]

[59] In its submission the body corporate explained the circumstances which led to Motion 11. The applicant has not refuted that information. The applicant has not, for example, evidenced that the billing system equipment is not in need of upgrade or the potential cost of such upgrades. They have not disputed the administrative cost of the user pays system.

[60] It may be that some owners will incur higher costs as a result of AGM Motion 11. But a body corporate's decision is not invalid simply because it does not benefit every owner or because it has negative consequences for some.

[61] I do not accept that the new apportionment of electricity usage costs for the chiller plant is contrary to the principles of cost sharing in the legislation. Under the new arrangements, costs are shared based on contribution schedule lot entitlements. That is the basis for most cost sharing in a body corporate. The contribution schedule lot entitlements in the CMS themselves that might reflect the different cost impacts of differing lots, amongst other things.[22] But body corporate cost sharing is not inherently a user-pays arrangement. For example, owners will contribute to the cost of a pool on common property regardless of whether they swim in it and will contribute to the cost of a lift even if they are on the ground floor. Moreover, contribution schedule lot entitlements are the default basis for sharing utilities services charges under section 196 of the Act.

[62] The submitters opposed to Motion 11 would prefer user-pays billing arrangements. That appears to be premised on an assumption that the current billing arrangements are functioning effectively and are sustainable. However, it appears from the submitted material that the current arrangements are not fully functional and that the body corporate is not able to simply maintain that status quo. If appears that if it did not move to the proposed new billing arrangements, it would need to incur significant costs to upgrade its current infrastructure to enable individual billing. That would necessarily increase costs for all.

[63] It seem that each option available to the body corporate will have pros and cons. Some opponents of Motion 11 may have preferred all the options, or at least some of them, to have been put to owners to choose from. That was open to the committee to do, albeit that it might have been considerably more time-consuming and expensive to properly scope and cost the specifics of all the other options. But there is not necessarily any obligation on a committee to put every option available to pursue an issue to all owners. Subject to any specific legislative obligations, it is open to a committee to simply propose its preferred option. If others would like the body corporate to pursue an alternative, they are at liberty to submit their own motions (accompanied by relevant quotes as required).

[64] Having regard to the submitted material, the applicant has not discharged their onus of establishing that the body corporate failed to act reasonably in deciding to pass Motion 11.

[65] A further issue is the impact of Motion 11 on tenant charging.

[66] The applicant says that under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 tenants can only be charged for utilities if the premises are individually metered, and the charge is based on actual consumption from a service provider's bill. They argue that the bulk billing model could result in tenants being charged for chilled water even if unused, creating legal exposure for investor owners. The applicant then argues that if the Motion 11 is overturned, owners who on charged tenants could be ordered to refund them which could impose significant liability on owners and avoidable legal costs for the body corporate.

[67] Some owners in support of the application indicate similar concerns.

[68] The body corporate says it is a matter for investor owners to ensure they comply with relevant laws that apply to their letting activities. It says it is not a relevant consideration in assessing the validity of Motion 11 that investor owners might improperly seek to pass a portion of their levies on to their tenants. It notes that investor owners can still pass on the costs of electricity supplied to lots under private retail contracts entered into by the owner or tenant as that type of electricity usage is not shared.

[69] AGM Motion 11 is only determining how owners will be charged. It does not determine what charges owners will pass onto their tenants. It is not the responsibility of the body corporate to manage its billing arrangements so that owners are only charged in a way that all charges to owners can be passed onto their tenants. It is a responsibility of an owner or their property manager to ensure any charges passed on to a tenant comply with the tenancy agreement and any legislation that governs the tenancy agreement.

[70] I do not understand, and the applicant does not explain, why the body corporate would incur legal costs if owners unlawfully charged their tenants. Regardless of whether Motion 11 is valid or not, owners are responsible for the charges they choose to pass on to their tenants. This is not a matter for the body corporate.

[71] The body corporate argues this application is misconceived and without substance and seeks the dismissal of the application and a partial award of its costs on that basis.

[72] The applicant opposes this. They say the application was only necessary because of the committee's failure to act reasonably and disclose essential information before the AGM.

[73] The Act provides that an adjudicator may dismiss an application if satisfied the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance.[23] If an application is dismissed on that basis, the adjudicator can award costs (up to a maximum of $2,000) incurred by the respondent, the body corporate, or an affected party for loss arising from the application.[24] An adjudicator may consider previous applications when deciding if to award costs.

[74] The applicant has not substantiated the claims in the application. But the lack of merit in an application does not of itself warrant an award of costs. The legislation regarding charging for utilities services can be difficult to understand, and there is evident complexity in the way the air conditioning and billing systems operate at this scheme. Although the body corporate was not necessarily required to provide more information to owners about Motion 11, it might have avoided at least some the concerns raised in this application if it had done so. Moreover, the apparent refusal of the body corporate to engage with the applicant's concerns arguably hindered the resolution of this dispute.

[75] In the circumstances, I will not dismiss the application on this basis or award costs.

[76] In their reply to the submissions, the applicant proposed the following orders be made:

1. Declare Motion 11 void and of no effect.
2. Continue billing chilled water based on actual consumption until a fair alternative is adopted.
3. Establish an independent sub-committee as outlined above.
4. Require full disclosure and payment planning for any upgrade option (Ensure Scope of Works is included).
5. Award costs in favour of the Applicant due to the committee's unreasonable conduct and failure to provide full information prior to the vote at the AGM.

[77] The applicant did not request or seek the Commissioner's permission to amend the orders sought in the application.[25] As the Commissioner has made a dispute resolution recommendation referring the application to adjudication, the application cannot now be amended. Moreover, it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice to make orders that were not put to the respondent.

[78] However, I will briefly comment on the proposed orders for the information of the parties.

[79] Orders 1 and 2 above are differently worded but have the same substantive effect as orders 1 and 2 in the application. For the reasons outlined, they are not warranted.

[80] With proposed order 3 for a sub-committee, the applicant has not identified any statutory obligation on the body corporate to establish a sub-committee, independent or otherwise. The legislation does not actually contemplate sub-committees and body corporate decisions can only be made by the committee or at a general meeting. It is open to the committee or the body corporate to decide to further investigate any matters relating to the air conditioning system or the utility service billing arrangements. Any owner could propose a motion to that effect. But the applicant has not identified any legal basis for an order requiring that to occur.

[81] For proposed order 4, if the body corporate were to consider a motion proposing an upgrade to any common property infrastructure, it would need to comply with the statutory requirements including relating to the provision of quotes and adequate notice. What information is necessary to comply with those requirements would depend on the specific proposal. What the applicant might consider useful or necessary information is not determinative of the statutory requirements. In any event, it is not currently evident that an upgrade is proposed, such that there is no apparent utility in the order sought.

[82] Finally, an adjudicator has no power to make proposed order 5. There is no inherent authority of an adjudicator to award costs to any party,[26] and no such authority is provided for in the legislation. The only capacity in the legislation to award costs to an applicant is if a respondent fails without reasonable excuse to participate in departmental conciliation,[27] That clearly does not apply in the current matter.

[83] As best as I can ascertain, the applicant appears to have misapprehended the body corporate's submission. They appear to conflate the chilled water system with the associated billing system. They appear to believe there is a need for a significant system upgrade regardless of Motion 11. But my understanding of the material is that a significant system upgrade is only required if the body corporate wants to continue with a user pays scenario and not if the approach adopted by Motion 11 remains. It is not immediately apparent to me from the submitted material that under that model an upgrade is required now or in the near future to enable lots to continue to have functioning air conditioning.

[84] It is unfortunate that the body corporate did not give more information to all owners about the context or rationale for AGM Motion 11. However, the applicant has not satisfied me that the charging arrangements in Motion 11 are contrary to the Act. The applicant also has not satisfied me that the body corporate's consideration of Motion 11 was procedurally defective, or that the decision to pass the motion was unreasonable. I have dismissed the application.

[85] The passage and implementation of Motion 11 do not prevent the body corporate changing its mind and deciding to pursue a different billing approach in future (subject to the requirements of the legislation). It is open to any owner to submit motions proposing alternatives billing arrangements or proposing that the body corporate establish a sub-committee, investigate upgrades, obtain quotes, and so on. But all those things are beyond the scope of the current application.

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

[7] Coolmaster Maintenance Technology customer estimate dated 13 November 2025.

[10] See for example, Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 319, Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99, Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland and Anor [2021] QCATA 119

[11] McGill DCJ in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, para 50

[12] Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452 cited in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences (cited above), paras 61-62

[13] McGill DCJ in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences (cited above), para 72

[14] See for example the discussion in Circa Metro [2025] QBCCMCmr 389, paras 43-53

[15] Pursuant to section 105 and 106 of the Act

[18] Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342, Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49

[19] Carmody J, Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99, p55

[20] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177, para 47

[21] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177, para 105

[24] Sections 270(3) and (4) of the Act

[26] See for example: Spicer v Carmody; Robinson v Carmody [1948] NSWStRp 25; Queensland Fish Board v Bunney, Ex parte Queensland Fish Board [1979] QSCFC 11