Section 77 of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (BUGT Act); Section 214A of the Mixed Use Development Act 1993 (MUD Act)

GENERAL MEETING MOTION - whether a motion passed by the community body corporate was valid.

1. I declare that motion 2, which was purportedly carried by resolution of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate committee on 14 October 2024, was invalid and incapable of authorising the body corporate to enter into an agreement with McBride Legal.
2. I declare that motion 2, which was purportedly carried at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate, on 28 March 2025, "to approve the incurring of cost for McBride Legal" was also invalid and at all times void.
3. I order that the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate is not to take further action to recover the Special Levy of $379,500, which was purportedly struck at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 28 March 2025.
4. I order that the application is otherwise dismissed.

I HEREBY CERTIFY this is a true copy of the order and reasons for decision.

• [2] The applicant is the Body Corporate for Cathedral Village, a subsidiary of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate. The applicant is referred to as "CV" and the respondent as "CP".
• [3] By resolution of the Committee dated 16 April 2025, it was resolved that the secretary prepare and lodge a number of applications for dispute resolution with the Office of BCCM including this application.
• [4] This application primarily relates to the engagement of McBride Legal and particularly to a resolution purportedly carried at an EGM of the Cathedral Place BC on 28 March 2025, "to approve the incurring of costs for McBride Legal acting on behalf of the body corporate in relation to District Court of Queensland Proceeding 2754 of 2010, which costs are estimated to be $210,000 - $345,000 plus GST".
• [5] The Body Corporate for Cathedral Village seeks the following final outcomes:
  1. That motion 1 passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate, reconvened on 28 March 2025 be ruled out of order and void.
  2. That motion 2 passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate, reconvened on 28 March 2025 be ruled out of order and void.
  3. That no action be taken to implement any decision made at the reconvened Extraordinary General Meeting held on 28 March 2025.
  4. That within 60 days of the date of the order of the referee, the CBC is to settle a section "176 (c)[1] agreement" in writing with the 5 residential BUP members identified in the motion of 18 May 2010, being Notre Dame BUP, Oxford & Cambridge BUP, Kensington & Sandringham BUP, Duhig BUP and Canterbury & Westminster BUP on terms and conditions that include:-

a) confirmation that the CBC executive committee accepts an agency appointment from the 5 residential BUPs acting as principals to conduct a proceeding in an appropriate court in the matter of 2754/2010 on their behalf. > > b) establish a separate bank account controlled by the CBC executive committee for the sole purpose of receiving contributions from the 5 residential members and paying funds to any person engaged under the terms of the agreement to conduct the proceeding 2754/2010. > > c) confirmation of the proportions that each of the 5 residential members are required to pay contributions into the bank account to fund the proposed proceeding 2754/2010 from time to time. > > d) require the 5 residential members to evidence each having obtained the authority of its proprietors in general meeting that the agent is appointed and the member will fund the proceeding in the proportion identified in the agreement pursuant to s50 BUGTA. > > e) the agent is authorised to engage persons from time to lime to conduct the proceeding and to settle estimate for fees with the persons and report regularly to the principals.

• [6] In addition, page 5 of the attachment to the application contains the following paragraph:

It is indisputable that the executive committee failed to observe the applicable provisions of s190 and s189 cited above.

The referee must rule resolution 2 of the 14 October 2024 invalid and incapable of authorising the body corporate to enter into an agreement with McBride Legal and undertake expenditure to do so.

• [7] Cathedral Place was developed under the Mixed Use Development Act 1993 (MUDA) and is the community body corporate under the scheme.
• [8] There are six members of CP, each of which is a body corporate under a building units plan for a certain part of the site. Of the 6 subsidiary bodies corporate, five are residential bodies corporate containing a total of 514 lots. The remaining body corporate, CV, comprises the retail and commercial building on the site, containing 27 lots.[2]
• [9] There are a total of 650 voting entitlements. CV hold 143 voting entitlements. The other members of CP represent, in total, five residential properties holding the remaining 507 voting entitlements between them.
• [10] For many years, the retail and commercial owners of CV have complained that CP, under the control of the majority residential owners, has levied contributions on CP's members which have been applied only for the benefit of the residential owners. In essence, their complaint is that most of the contributions levied on CV have been for the provision by CP of amenities and services to other parts of the site from which CV receives no benefit. Their complaint is that this conduct exceeds, or is a misuse of, CP's powers under the MUDA.
• [11] The applicant says this dispute is about the process CP's executive committee has employed to approve the engagement of a legal firm pursuant to s190 Mixed Use Development Act (MUDA), the terms and conditions of the engagement and the way CP's members will be charged to place CP in sufficient funds to pay the legal firm. The applicant says this dispute also involves differing views regarding the applicability of ss177 and 174 of MUDA.
• [12] The Cathedral Place complex is comprised of 7 buildings. The 5 residential member building unit plans (BUPs) and 1 commercial BUP surround a central core that is the property of CP across 3 layers, "not unlike a doughnut with CP's property (CPL4) being the hole in the doughnut".[3] CP's property (CPL4) comprises 2 layers of carparks allocated to the 5 residential BUPs under s206A & bylaws 21 and 25, a pool layer, restricted to the use of proprietors of the 5 residential BUPs under another "s206A bylaw 27" and a small area of unallocated carpark for the use of bona fide visitors to the complex as mandated by the development Approval.
• [13] CPL4 comprises 8,895 m2 in total area. Only 1,240 m2 is in the unallocated visitor carpark, including a short access thoroughfare used by all 6 BUPs. This unallocated area of CP's property is about 14% of the total property area owned by CP in the scheme.
• [14] In argument before the District Court in July 2018[4], CV submitted that it was only obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the unallocated carpark area. Under the various s206A by-laws, it was not obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the residential carparks (by-laws 21 & 25), associated thoroughfares used by the residential members' proprietors to access the car bays allocated to them under By-law 25, nor the pool area (by-law 27). The applicant says the court accepted these arguments and two subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal (14271 of 2019, attachment 3 and 1690 of 2020, attachment 4) did not disturb that finding.
• [15] The scheme was registered in 1998. CV has 143 voting entitlements out of a total of 650 voting entitlements (22%). However, it has only 4.9% of the lots (27 lots out of a total of 541 lots). The applicant says that over many years, CP's executive committee (excepting CV's representative) was of the view that CV ought to pay 22% rather than a much lower ratio (as low as 2.6%) of the costs of administering and maintaining CP and CPL4 in particular.
• [16] The applicant says this disagreement was the subject of District Court litigation before Judge McGill in D2754/2010, and 2 subsequent appeal decisions (14271-2019 and 1690-2020) where the Court of Appeal found that CV is not lawfully obliged to "subsidise" the services and amenities supplied to the 5 residential members. The only expenses that CV ought to contribute 22% to, are the visitors carpark and 22% of CP's administrative expenses to conduct its meetings, maintain its books of account and manage the visitors carpark.
• [17] Proceedings in the District Court commenced in 2010 as a claim by CP, in an amount of $188,352.71 for unpaid contributions, against CV. CV defended the proceeding on the basis that those contributions, as well as earlier contributions, which had been levied against and paid by them, were excessive because they included amounts to provide benefits to only the residential owners, or to some of them. CV claimed that upon a proper accounting of what should have been levied against them, they had overpaid CP such that it should repay money to them. They counterclaimed an amount of $246,719.
• [18] The applicant says that on 21 December 2018, Judge McGill DCJ delivered extensive reasons (2754-2010), without making any orders. In his published reasons Judge McGill DCJ invited the parties to make further submissions as to the relief to be granted after they had had the opportunity to consider his reasons. After receipt of further submissions in writing, the defendant filed an amended defence and counterclaim.
• [19] Judge McGill was of the view that in a number of respects, the defendant's complaints were justified, in that the plaintiff had been paying for various things which ought to have been at the cost of the separate bodies corporate, other than the defendant.
• [20] However, having regard to s174(4) MUDA, his Honour was of the view that there was no defence to the plaintiff's claims, and the defendant was liable to pay the amounts proved to have been levied as contributions from it.

Subsection 174(4) MUDA provides as follows:

(a) is payable to the body corporate in accordance with its decision to make the levy; and

(b) if paid within 30 days from the day on which it becomes payable - is to be reduced by the part of the contribution attributable to any amount determined under section 177(2); and

(c) may be recovered as a debt by the body corporate in a court of competent jurisdiction;

(d) must be paid to the body corporate as a monetary amount.

• [21] On 29 October 2019, judgment was given for the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff $290,077.44 including $106,419.24 by way of interest.
• [22] Subsequently, on 29 November 2019, McGill DCJ made further orders and declared that:

The Mixed Use Development Act 1993 on its true construction, does not authorise the community body corporate to require the defendant to contribute to the cost of providing amenities or services, pursuant to an agreement entered into under s 176(c) of the Act, for the provision of such amenities or services to a lot, or to the proprietor or occupier of a lot, or to a parcel comprised In a building units plan, other than a lot or the proprietor or occupier of a lot within the building units plan administered by the defendant, or to the building units plan administered by the defendant.

(a) The plaintiff, in performance of its obligation to keep proper accounts, account separately for all costs incurred for the maintenance of the restricted community property covered by by-law 27, including normal operating costs and periodic capital costs.

(b) The plaintiff be restrained, until further order, by itself its servants or agents, from undertaking any works on any part of the common property of a member of the community body corporate, other than on the basis that all the costs of undertaking the works be paid by that body corporate.

(c) The plaintiff be restrained, until further order, by itself its servants or agents, from the operating of a gymnasium or of a sauna, or from the provision of supplies or equipment for a gymnasium or for a sauna, or for the provision of cleaning, supervision, maintenance or other services to a gymnasium or to a sauna, unless either:

1. The gymnasium or sauna is located wholly within the community property of the plaintiff; or
2. The body corporate within which the gymnasium or sauna is located pays all costs involved in whatever the plaintiff does.

• [24] Cathedral Place appealed against the above orders on 29 November 2019. That appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal,[5] which on 3 November 2020[6], allowed the appeal in part. In that judgment, referred to as the "first appeal judgment", the court determined a number of issues involving the interpretation of the MUDA. The applicant says there is also a second appeal (1690 of 2020) and both appeal judgments should be read together.
• [25] In the first appeal judgment, the court noted the need for CP to keep accounts which separately recorded costs incurred for the maintenance of restricted community property covered by by-law 27 (and by-laws 21, 25, 28). According to by-laws 21 and 27, those costs must be paid to CP by the residential bodies corporate, under a separate charge pursuant to each by-law. Those costs could not be raised by contributions under s174, because they are not, in the terms of s177(1)(h)[7], amounts "necessary to be raised by way of contributions for the purpose of meeting its actual or expected liabilities incurred or to be incurred under paragraph (b) ".
• [26] Section 177(1)(i) requires a community body corporate to form an opinion about the amounts necessary to be raised by way of contributions (by a levy under s174). That requires the body corporate to assess its actual or expected liabilities incurred or to be incurred under s177(1)(b), as well as what funds are required for the payment of insurance premiums, rates or any other liability of the body corporate (other than amounts referred to in paragraph (l) (since renumbered as s177(1)(m)).

• [27] In the second appeal decision, Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate v The Proprietors Cathedral Village [2020] QCA 240 _(_1690-2020), the Court of Appeal did not agree with Judge McGill's reasoning that levies quantified by the inclusion of these amounts could not be challenged.
• [28] The court found :

1. that these costs were irrelevant to a determination under s177(1)(i),

2. CP considered that it was entitled to levy contributions which included those costs.

3. However, CP had to consider whether it was necessary to raise contributions by levies on each of its members so that these costs could be met. CP could not have thought that it was necessary to do so, and it was inferred that CP did not consider that question.

4. these costs were included because CP, in the purported discharge of its duty under s177(1)(i), did not do what the provision required - which was to form an opinion of whether it was necessary to raise an amount for expenditures by way of contributions under s 174.

5. Contributions could not be levied under s174, in sums which resulted from something which purported to be, but was not, a determination under s177(1)(h). In the language of the primary judgment, the purported determination was a nullity.

• [29] In the second appeal the Court found that the trial judge erred in holding that there was no defence to CP's claim. The original judgment in favour of CP was set aside, as was the dismissal of the counterclaim. The second appeal ordered that CP's claim, and the counterclaim from CV which sought a money sum, should be remitted to the District Court for further determination.
• [30] The matter is scheduled for November 2025 in the District Court. The applicant says CP has not amended its original claim of about $188k but CV has amended its original counterclaim to now be about $640k. Both parties have been ordered to provide expert's opinion for consideration by the District Court in November 2025.
• [31] The present dispute concerns CP's purported engagement of McBride Legal to provide legal representation and advice for the District Court proceedings between CP and CV. The applicant says that on 14 October 2024, by resolution 2, CP's executive committee resolved to engage McBride Legal for the District Court proceedings.
• [32] Subsequently, on 28 March 2025 at a reconvened EGM, the CP body corporate purported to approve by resolution 2, an estimated budget of $210,000 - $345,000 plus GST for McBride Legal's costs, and authorized a special levy of $379,500 (inc GST) on all six members based on voting entitlements.
• [33] The applicant says the 14 October 2024 resolution is problematic because s189(1)(d) designates this as a "restricted matter" requiring a decision by the body corporate in a general meeting or via a comprehensive resolution. Therefore, the executive committee's decision was not a decision of the body corporate.
• [34] Secondly, the applicant says section 190(1)(a) MUDA restricts the executive committee's power to undertake expenditure without a comprehensive resolution. Alternatively, s190(2) provides that the executive committee may submit such a proposal for determination by an EGM if it is accompanied by at least 2 tenders.[8]
• [35] Thirdly, the applicant says that in reality, CP has purported to engage McBride Legal to conduct the proceeding on behalf of the 5 residential bodies corporate against CV. It is argued that CV should not have to contribute toward the cost of engaging McBride Legal because CV is not lawfully obliged to "subsidise" a service supplied to the 5 residential members.

• [36] The CPCBC was established under the Mixed Use Development Act 1993 (MUD Act). Section 214A of the MUD Act provides: "Unless otherwise provided in this Act, a dispute about the operation of this Act or the rights and obligations of persons under this Act may be dealt with under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, part 5" (BUGT Act).
• [37] Part 5 of the BUGT Act concerns disputes. Section 77(1) provides: "A referee may, pursuant to an application of a body corporate,...a proprietor...in respect of a parcel, make an order on any person entitled to make an application under this subsection...for the settlement of a dispute, or the rectification of a complaint, with respect to the exercise or performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform, a power, authority, duty or function conferred or imposed by this Act in connection with that parcel."
• [38] CPCBC is a body corporate incorporated under section 167(1) of the MUD Act and the Applicant is a member of the CPCBC (s 167(6)). The Applicant's connection to the CPCBC is well established by provisions of the MUD Act such as sections 169, 172, 174, 180, 183 and 185(7). Given this relationship and the context of section 214A, I consider there is jurisdiction to make an order under section 77(1) of the BUGT Act with respect a dispute of this nature between the CPCBC and a member body corporate.
• [39] Following receipt of the application I then invited submissions about the amended application from the CPCBC executive committee, the members of the CPCBC.[9] No submissions were received.

• [40] In summary the applicant is seeking the following outcomes:
  1. That motions 1 & 2 passed at the EGM for CB on 28 March 2025, be ruled out of order and void.
  2. That resolutions carried at the EGM for CB on 28 March 2025 not be implemented.
  3. That the CBC settle a "section 176 (c) agreement" with the 5 residential bodies corporate confirming that the CBC executive committee is acting as agent the 5 residential BUPs acting as principals to conduct a proceeding in an appropriate court in the matter of 2754/2010.
• [41] By a flying minute recorded as a "Vote Outside of Executive committee Meeting" dated 14 October 2024, the executive committee of CP resolved at resolution 2:

That the Executive committee for Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate Mixed Community Plan 106902 agrees to engage McBride Legal to provide legal representation and advice for the legal proceedings 'Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate MCP 106902 vs The Proprietors Cathedral Village BUP 106957', and any other legal advice as is needed.

• [42] The flying minute recorded 4 YES votes in favour of the motion. The minute confirms there were 4 members of the executive committee on that date.
• [43] At CP's executive committee meeting on 21 March 2025, the flying minute of 14 October 2024 was confirmed as a true and accurate account of proceedings on 14 October 2024.
• [44] However neither the flying minute of 14 October 2024, nor the executive committee meeting of 21 March 2025, that ratified motion 2 in the flying minute, approved a budget to fund the appointment of McBride Legal.
• [45] Subsequently, an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was called for 25 March 2025 to approve a budget to fund the appointment and raise funds from members. The EGM of 25 March 2025 was adjourned and reconvened on 28 March 2025,[10] and it was resolved by ordinary resolution to approve a budget to fund the proceeding.
• [46] Three of the 6 members were declared ineligible to vote as they allegedly owed a body corporate debt. The minutes of the EGM record that the motion was passed unanimously with 3 votes in favour:

THAT the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate MCP 106902 resolves to approve the incurring of cost for McBride Legal acting on behalf of the body corporate in relation to District Court of Queensland Proceeding 2754 of 2010, which costs are estimated to be $210,000 - $345,000 plus GST AND

THAT a Special Levy be struck for a total of $379,500 Inc GST in two amounts as follows:

• [47] I Note that they did not resolve to engage McBride Legal but only to approve a budget to fund their engagement.
• [48] Section 189 of MUDA is relevant to the circumstances of this case and provides as follows:

189 Executive committee's decisions to be decisions of body corporate

(1) In this section - restricted matter, in relation to a body corporate, means -

(a) a matter relating to the fixing of a special levy on all members of the body corporate; or

(b) a matter that seeks to alter the rights, privileges or obligations of members of the body corporate; or

(c) a matter that seeks to alter the annual contribution of members of the body corporate; or

(d) a matter on which a decision may only be made by the body corporate under a comprehensive resolution or in general meeting of the body corporate.

(2) A decision of the executive committee on a matter that is not a restricted matter is taken to be the decision of the body corporate.

(3) The executive committee must act reasonably in making, or not making, a decision.

(4) Even if the executive committee is properly constituted, the body corporate may in general meeting continue to exercise the powers conferred on the body corporate by this Act.

• [49] Section 190 of MUDA is also relevant and provides as follows:

190 Statutory restrictions on powers of executive committee

(1) The executive committee of a body corporate may undertake expenditure only if -

(a) authorised by a comprehensive resolution of the body corporate; or

(2) In relation to any proposed expenditure that the executive committee is unable to undertake because of subsection (1), the executive committee must -

(a) submit the proposal for determination at an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate convened for the purpose of, or for purposes that include, consideration of the proposal; and

(b) if the proposed expenditure is for work to be performed or the purchase of personal property - submit at least 2 tenders to the meeting with the proposal.

(a) in payment of any premium for insurance taken out for the body corporate; or

(b) to comply with a notice or order served on the body corporate by a court, a local government, the State, the Commonwealth or a provider of a public utility service; or

(c) in discharge of a liability incurred in relation to an obligation of the body corporate authorised by the body corporate in general meeting.

• [50] It is evident that upon passage of the executive committee resolution on 14 October 2024, the executive committee believed it had authority to engage McBride Legal to act as their legal representative in proceeding D2475-2010 for CP, presumably under the provisions of s190. As the applicant points out, it is highly probable that the executive committee expected to incur considerable costs in the proceeding, as eventually evidenced in the resolution of 28 March 2025.
• [51] Section 190 MUDA operates to place statutory restrictions on the powers of CP's executive committee to incur expenditure. Section 190(1)(a) empowers the executive committee of a body corporate to undertake expenditure only if authorised by a comprehensive resolution of the body corporate. A comprehensive resolution is defined in Schedule 5 in the following terms:

comprehensive resolution , in relation to a community body corporate or precinct body corporate, means a resolution -

(a) that is passed at a properly convened meeting of the body corporate; and

(b) for which the members that vote in favour have not less than 75% of the voting entitlements recorded in its body corporate roll.

• [52] However it should be noted that subsection 190(2) provides that where the executive committee is unable to incur expenditure because of the restriction in subsection (1), the executive committee may incur expenditure if it does the following:

(a) submit the proposal for determination at an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate convened for the purpose of, or for purposes that include, consideration of the proposal; and

(b) if the proposed expenditure is for work to be performed or the purchase of personal property - submit at least 2 tenders to the meeting with the proposal.

• [53] The resolution passed by the committee did not provide at least two tenders with the proposal (indeed it offered no details at all) nor did it propose that the resolution, if passed, should be placed before an EGM of CP.
• [54] I am therefore of the view that the committee resolution 2 of the 14 October 2024 is invalid and incapable of authorising the body corporate to enter into an agreement with McBride Legal and undertake expenditure to do so. It follows that the executive committee engaged McBride Legal, and commenced to pay invoices rendered to CP by McBride Legal, without authority.
• [55] I then turn to the applicant's request that motion 2, passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate on 28 March 2025,[11] be ruled out of order and void.
• [56] As there was no valid engagement of McBride Legal, I do not see how the EGM could validly approve a budget to fund their engagement.
• [57] Next, the applicant says it was open for each of the 5 residential members to commence recovery proceedings directly against CV in their own name. They say that for reasons of economy, the 5 residential members chose to resolve to collect outstanding levies from CV through an agency arrangement with CP.
• [58] The applicant argues that therefore, the CP is standing in the place of the 5 residential BC's in commencing the proceedings or "in other words, CP is acting as the agent of the 5 residentials". The applicant says that CP should raise levies from its 5 residential members for whom it acts as their agent, to fund its claim before the courts. They say this is because the courts have found that it is beyond power for CP to levy all 6 of its members to provide a service that will be enjoyed by only 5 of its members.
• [59] While I can understand the applicant's reasoning, (that CV is an adversary in litigation with the CP), I do not believe that the legislation contemplates 5 residential members conducting recovery proceedings directly against CV in their own name. Nor is it practicable to do so.
• [60] In Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate v Cathedral Village [2020] QCA 239, McMurdo J. stated at [68]

For the purposes of this case, it is necessary to consider only the amounts to be determined under (h). In particular, what must be considered is the scope of the expression "any other liability of the body corporate" within paragraph (h)(ii). Obviously, this goes beyond the actual or expected liabilities incurred or to be incurred under paragraph (b), namely what must be spent in the proper maintenance of the community property and any personal property vested in the body corporate. It extends to any other liability of the body corporate in carrying out its powers and functions under the Act or its by-laws, save for those expenses which, by particular provisions of the Act or its by-laws, are to be recovered by contributions from only some of its members or proprietors, lessees or occupiers.[12]

• [61] Obviously, in carrying out its powers and functions under the Act, the body corporate has an obligation to collect contribution levies. Ordinarily, contributions are levied on all members in shares proportional to their voting entitlements.[13] Members cannot just choose what levies they or others will contribute to.
• [62] Under section 174 of the Act, a contribution is (i) levied by the body corporate, (ii) is payable to the body corporate and (iii) may be recovered as a debt by the body corporate.
• [63] Where the level of indebtedness is disputed, the body corporate is entitled to engage legal representation. This circumstance is easily distinguishable from recovery of expenses which, by particular provisions of the Act or its by-laws, are to be recovered by contributions from only some of its members or proprietors.
• [64] I do not believe section 176(c) can be relied upon in the manner proposed by the applicant - i.e. for CB to be appointed as agent by the 5 residential bodies corporate to conduct a proceeding where CB is the plaintiff.
• [65] In my view the purpose of section 176(c) is to enable the body corporate to enter into an agreement for the provision of amenities or services, such as maintenance or domestic services such as electricity, to a lot or a parcel of lots, and the body corporate would generally recover the cost of supplying the service from the recipient of those services.
• [66] However, I would point out that under section 193 of the Act, in a proceeding by a member against the body corporate, the court may order that an amount (including for costs) payable by the body corporate shall only be paid by specified members in specified proportions. That section says the body corporate must levy the contributions in accordance with the order and pay the amount out of the contributions. It says the provisions relating to the levying of contributions apply with necessary modifications. Importantly, the section requires an order to authorise the variation in the way contributions are normally payable.
• [67] The District Court considered section 193 in its discussion of costs in the reasons for decision.[14] Due to his findings on the substantive issues, McGill SC DCJ said it would be unfair to require Cathedral Village to pay the CP's costs of the whole proceeding. His Honour noted it would be open to the court under section 193 of the MUD Act to order costs for the counterclaim be paid by the members of the CP other than Cathedral Village. But he said that could not be done for the claim brought by the CP as it was not a proceeding brought by a member against the body corporate. His Honour said:

The effect of that is that the defendant (Cathedral Village) will be required to contribute, in the usual proportion, to any order for costs in its favour against the plaintiff (the CPCBC).[15]

• [68] For the above reasons I have made the following orders:
  1. I declare that motion 2, which was purportedly carried by resolution of the CP committee on 14 October 2024 was invalid and incapable of authorising the body corporate to enter into an agreement with McBride Legal.
  2. I declare that motion 2, which was purportedly carried at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate, on 28 March 2025, "to approve the incurring of cost for McBride Legal" was also invalid and at all times void.
  3. I order that the CP body corporate is not to take further action to recover the Special Levy of $379,500, which was purportedly struck at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 28 March 2025.
  4. The application is otherwise dismissed.

[1] Of the Mixed Use Development Act

[2] In total there are 541 lots in the scheme.

[4] Attachment 2 D2754-2010, judgement delivered 21 December 2018

[5] Cathedral Place v The Proprietors Cathedral Village [2020] QCA 239

[7] s177(1)(h) has since been renumbered as s177(1)(i)

[8] I understand this to be a decision by ordinary resolution of an EGM

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

[11] To approve the cost of engaging McBride Legal, estimated to be $210,000 - $345,000 plus GST, and that a Special Levy be struck for a total of $379,500.

[12] For example costs associated with maintaining restricted community property (like residential carparks and the pool area, covered by bylaws 21, 25, 27, 28) should be met by levies only on the residential bodies corporate, not by general contributions from all members.

[14] Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate v The Proprietors Cathedral Village BUP 106957 (No 3) [2019] QDC 238, paras 32-50

[15] Cathedral Place Community Body Corporate v The Proprietors Cathedral Village BUP 106957 (No 3) [2019] QDC 238, para 39