Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (Standard Module)

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE - whether the proposed spending is needed to meet an emergency.

Act, 243A; Standard Module, s 172(1)(c)

1. The Committee for the Body Corporate for Chateau Amelia is authorised to give effect to the emergency spending proposal for waterproofing and associated works the subject of the quotation of NailedIt in estimate Q-01085, up to the amount of $12,352.84 plus any reasonable and necessary contingency arising within the same scope of works.

[1] This application seeks authority to spend body corporate funds for works which exceed the committee's spending limit. It is submitted that urgent waterproofing and associated works need to be carried out to a garage building in the scheme.

[2] The committee explains that a neighbouring property (situated at 48 Amelia Street) is undergoing a major renovation (including the removal of a carport and excavation adjacent to the garage building). This has resulted in stormwater that was previously diverted from the scheme entering the garage building. Further investigation apparently revealed that the foundations of the garage building were not waterproofed at the time of construction (approximately 30 years ago).

[3] The committee submits that authorisation for the emergency spending is essential for protecting the garage building from potentially serious future deterioration and damage.

[4] It says that the installation of a new retaining wall on the neighbouring property is scheduled to commence from 23 March 2026, and that a concrete driveway will be installed shortly after. However, in an email from NailedIt Creations dated 25 March 2026, the work appears to have been delayed and is expected to recommence on 27 March 2026.

[5] After the works on the neighbouring property are complete, the application indicates that the body corporate will no longer be able to access to the external walls of the garage building that require waterproofing (unless the new driveway and retaining wall of the neighbouring property are removed).

[6] The application further indicates that any waterproofing work should be done concurrently with the construction work at the neighbouring property to ensure appropriate access to the garage wall footings before the driveway is constructed.

[7] To expedite matters and ensure appropriate access, the committee submits that the building contractor for 48 Amelia Street offered to provide a quotation for the necessary waterproofing and earthworks. A quote for the work was subsequently provided by the building contractor on 27 February 2026 for $12, 352.84.

[8] As the cost of the work was higher than the committee had anticipated, it sought expert engineering advice from PASG Projects before proceeding. PASG Projects inspected the property on 4 March 2026. A defect report (dated 16 March 2026) from PASG Projects was subsequently received by the committee on 17 March 2026. The defect report concluded that:

Initial efforts should focus on implementing appropriate drainage measures adjacent to the wall and providing suitable waterproofing protection to exposed sections of masonry where necessary. Addressing these primary moisture pathways will assist in preventing further water ingress and reducing the potential for ongoing deterioration of the garage structure.

[9] The committee then met with the building contractor to discuss the findings of he PASG Projects report on 19 March 2026.

[10] The committee submits that it did not have sufficient time to source further quotations from other suitably licensed builders or call a general meeting as required under the Standard Module (before access to the back wall of the garages at the scheme is no longer possible).

[11] It says that sufficient funds are currently available for the quoted works.

[12] The application seeks the following outcome:

The Body Corporate is seeking an emergency order authorising the body corporate to engage NailedIt Creations to carry out waterproofing and associated work to one of the garage buildings at Chateau Amelia at an estimated cost of $12,352.84, as set out in the quotation dated 23 March 2026 (Attached).

[13] Chateau Amelia community titles scheme 1904 is a 6-lot scheme in Coorparoo. The community management statement (CMS) indicates the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 13779.

[14] This application was lodged on 24 March 2026 pursuant to a vote outside a committee meeting on the same day. The Commissioner sought further clarification from the applicant about the application.[1] The application was then amended.[2]

[15] Section 243A of the Act provides that if the commissioner reasonably considers that an application relates to emergency circumstances and it is not appropriate to deal with the application under section 247 of the Act (regarding the referral of an application for an interim order), the commissioner may immediately refer the application to an adjudicator without giving written notice as normally required under section 243 of the Act.

[16] This application was accordingly referred to me pursuant to section 243A of the Act.

[17] 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 the performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[3]

[18] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions in the Act.[4]

[19] Chateau Amelia is created under a building units plan, also known as a building format plan (BFP) of subdivision. It is generally the case that the body corporate is responsible for the exterior of the building, and an owner is responsible for the lot interior under this plan type.

[20] A BFP defines land using the structural elements of a building.[5] The boundary of a lot is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling where the lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall, or ceiling.[6]

[21] The body corporate must maintain the common property in good and structurally sound condition, whereas an owner must maintain their lot in good condition.[7] However, under a BFP, the body corporate must also maintain the following elements of scheme land that are not common property in good condition:[8]

• railings, parapets, and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property
• doors, windows, and associated fittings in a boundary wall between a lot and common property
• roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property.

[22] The body corporate must similarly maintain the following elements of scheme land that are not common property in a structurally sound condition:[9]

• foundation structures
• roofing structures providing protection
• essential supporting framework (including load-bearing walls).

[23] From the advice obtained from the building contractor at NailedIt Creations and the expert engineering advice subsequently obtained from PASG Projects, it is apparent that elements of the scheme are not in good or structurally sound condition and that urgent work is required to prevent further water ingress and potential ongoing deterioration of the garage structure.

[24] From the submitted material, the waterproofing to the external garage walls and associated works proposed to be undertaken appear to be the responsibility of the body corporate. The application also indicates that the body corporate is responsible for the work.

[25] In view of the body corporate's statutory maintenance obligations (outlined above), carrying out the proposed work appears to be necessary for it to fulfill its maintenance obligations.

[26] Section 172 of the Standard Module provides that a committee cannot incur spending which exceeds the relevant limit for committee spending except in specified circumstances. Most relevantly for present purposes, one such exception is that the committee can give effect to a proposal above the committee spending limit if an adjudicator is satisfied that the spending is required to meet an emergency and it authorises the spending pursuant to an order made under the dispute resolution provisions.[10]

[27] The spending proposed in quotation Q-01085 clearly exceeds the committee spending limit. The relevant limit for committee spending is $200 multiplied by the number of lots in the scheme (unless the body corporate has previously resolved by ordinary resolution to change the default limit).[11]

[28] The committee has also indicated that it was unable to source further quotations or call a general meeting due to time constraints. Presumably then, the spending is also likely to exceed the body corporate's major spending limit.[12]

[29] Consequently, the question is whether the proposed spending is necessary to meet an emergency.

[30] From the submitted material (which includes advice from a building contractor and a defect report from an engineer), I am satisfied that the work proposed to be carried out is necessary to prevent further water ingress and ongoing deterioration of the garage structure. It is also apparent that the committee has actively been attempting to resolve these issues since they were recently revealed.

[31] I am also satisfied that the work must be carried out urgently due to the rapidly closing window for accessing the external walls of the garage building that require waterproofing once works on the neighbouring property at 48 Amelia Street are completed.

[32] In view of the above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order authorising the committee to give effect to the emergency spending proposal.

[1] Section 240 of the Act

[2] Section 245 of the Act

[4] Sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[5] Section 48C of the Land Title Act 1994

[6] Section 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[7] Sections 180(1) and 211(3) of the Standard Module

[8] Section 180(2) of the Standard Module

[9] Section 180(2)(b) of the Standard Module

[10] Section 172(1)(c) of the Standard Module

[11] See Schedule 1 Dictionary of the Standard Module

[12] See sections 173 and 174 of the Standard Module and the definition of 'relevant limit for major spending' in Schedule 1 Dictionary of the Standard Module