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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION - whether the body corporate required resolution without dissent to change a by-law; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in proposing and passing a motion to change a by-law.

Act, ss 35, 59, 62, 94, 100, 154-159, 161-163, 169 180, 242; Accommodation Module, s 174

1. I hereby order that by-law 30.4 in the community management statement recorded on 20 August 2024 is void.
2. I order that within 3 months of the date of this order, the body corporate must record a new community management statement reflecting the above order.
3. Further, I order that within 30 days of the date of this order, the body corporate must ensure all devices provided pursuant to by-laws 30.3 and 30.5 allow access to the secured carpark area.
4. This application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about the body corporate's decision to change a by-law regarding access to the carpark on common property. The applicant challenges the motion (Motion 13) as invalid and wants the body corporate to program additional fob devices (the Devices) that enable access to the carpark. The body corporate argues Motion 13 was validly passed and the applicant's request to program additional Devices was adjudicated previously.
• [2] The applicant seeks the following final order:
  1. That resolution and motion 13 relating to "Proposed Addition to By-laws - 30 Security By-law" and proposed at the annual general meeting, in particular by-laws 30.4, 30.5, and 30.11, are invalid and at all times void.
  2. That the body corporate programs additional fob access (fobs as designated by the lot owner of 2271) to all common and car parking areas.
  3. Any other order that the Adjudicator sees fit.

• [3] Chevron Renaissance community title scheme 30946 (Chevron Renaissance) is a 719-lot scheme and common property in Surfers Paradise. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as a building format plan on survey plans 155609, 168237, 175385, 176505 and 274260.
• [4] The applicant is the owner of Lot 2271. The respondent is the Body Corporate for Chevron Renaissance.

• [5] The Commissioner invited the body corporate and all owners to make a submission on the application.[1] The body corporate and multiple owners made submissions. The applicant elected to obtain a copy of the submissions and provided a reply.[2] The Commissioner then referred the application to departmental adjudication.[3]
• [6] I have investigated the application, including reviewing the application, the submissions, the reply, the current CMS, the relevant title searches and the survey plans.[4]

• [7] The order sought relates to a dispute between the applicant and body corporate regarding a change made to the by-laws. As such, I am satisfied the dispute falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the legislation.[5]
• [8] 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 CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[6] An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated.[7] An order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers appropriate.[8]

• [9] On 4 July 2024, the body corporate held an annual general meeting (AGM) during which Motion 13, submitted by the body corporate committee, was purportedly passed by special resolution. Motion 13 proposed to replace by-law 30, the security by-law.
• [10] The AGM minutes record that Motion 13 was carried with 105 votes in favour, 31 votes against and 6 votes abstentions.
• [11] On 20 August 2024, the body corporate recorded the current CMS which contains a new by-law 30 as proposed by Motion 13.
• [12] On 4 October 2024, the applicant lodged the current adjudication application. I have summarised the grounds within the application as follows:
  1. Motion 13 required a resolution without dissent as it impacted the presumptive rights of an owner to ownership of, and access to, common property.
  2. The body corporate failed to act reasonably in proposing, and passing, Motion 13.
  3. Limiting the number of Devices that could access the carpark area created, in effect, an area of exclusive use common property.
  4. Providing a limited number of Devices equal to the Lot's exclusive use parking spaces unreasonably interfered with others' lawful right to the use and enjoyment of common property. Owners with fewer, or no, exclusive use parking spaces had their access to common property impacted.
  5. By-law 30.11 was invalid as it imposed a monetary liability.

• [13] I have summarised the submissions provided by the body corporate as follows:
  1. Until approximately April 2021, owners with exclusive use parking spaces had a number of Devices programmed to allow access to their relevant carpark area equal to the number of parking spaces allocated to their lot.
  2. Around April 2021, a change was made that all Devices allocated to owners with exclusive use carparks were able to be used to access the secure carparking area.
  3. In early 2023, reports were received about unlawful parking in the secured carpark area due to the misuse of Devices. Owners were parking in others' parking spaces or were providing Devices to third parties.
  4. The committee directed its security provider to restore the Device access levels to the pre-April 2021 status.
  5. Motion 13 was passed and the new by-law 30 has been recorded in the current CMS.
  6. Motion 13 did not require a resolution without dissent as it did not constitute a grant of exclusive use and did not grant rights over an area of the secure carparking area already subject to by-law 37, the exclusive use carpark by-law.
  7. By-law 30.11 was not intended to form part of by-law 30 and was included within Motion 13 as a formatting and numerical error.
  8. The application was lodged outside of the 3 month timeframe.
  9. The applicant had the same level of access as other owners, having 2 devices programmed to access the secure carpark area as he had 2 allocated parking spaces.
  10. There is nothing preventing the applicant from accessing the secure carpark area using his Devices when his lot is not rented out.
• [14] The body corporate also provided the explanatory note for Motion 13 which stated:

The Committee recommends that you vote 'YES' to this motion.

The Committee believes that the proposed new security by-law provides additional protections to the Body Corporate, owners and occupiers.

Limiting the number of keys, fobs or remotes ('Devices') provided per lot is necessary to ensure an appropriate level of security for occupiers at the Scheme and the belongings of the Body Corporate and occupiers.

If an owner or occupier requires more than 5 Devices, or needs a replacement Device, they can make a request to the Committee.

Each additional/replacement Device will be provided at the stated cost.

• [15] 15 lot owners also provided submissions in relation to this application.
• [16] One lot owner expressed a neutral position and the submissions provided on behalf of the owner of Lot 2292 sought their own separate orders be granted. To consider additional, unrelated orders would be to go beyond the scope of this application and would need to proceed through the submitter's own conciliation and adjudication process.
• [17] 10 lot owners provided submissions in support of the applicant which I have summarised as follows:
  1. Reduced access makes it difficult for those renting their lots to attend meetings and inspect the property.
  2. Reduced access is restrictive, inconvenient and did not suit everyone's circumstances.
  3. All owners should have unrestricted access to common property.
  4. Motion 13 disposed of the owner's presumptive access to common property and created an area of exclusive use.
• [18] Three lot owners provided submissions in support of the body corporate which I have summarised as follows:
  1. It would be unfair for one owner to be granted more access and Devices than others.
  2. The number of allocated Devices was sufficient for owners to manage their personal affairs.
  3. Motion 13 did not require resolution without dissent as it did not dispose of parts of common property.

• [19] I have summarised the applicant's reply to the body corporate and lot owner's submissions as follows:
  1. Previously all of an owner's Devices were programmed to allow access to all common property areas, not just the secure parking area.
  2. Under the new system, the elevator fobs can no longer access the secure carpark area.
  3. The concerns of the misuse of carpark access Devices have not been defined, nor is there evidence to support the concerns.
  4. There is doubt as to whether the body corporate acted reasonably in passing Motion 13 as a number of the concerns were unsubstantiated and not supported by evidence.
  5. Owners have a right to access all areas of common property, including the hallways of all four carpark areas.
  6. Motion 13 created a class of exclusive use owners who were able to access certain areas of common property and, as such, the motion required a resolution without dissent.
  7. The body corporate did not have the authority to remove the numerical and formatting errors of by-law 30.11 as when a motion is voted on, the only way it could be removed is by way of another motion at another general meeting.
  8. The application was lodged within the appropriate timeframe.
• [20] The applicant additionally provided statements from the owners of Lots 1015, 1017, 2119, 2172 and 3035. These statements indicate that all of their Devices were previously able to access the secure carparking area and the number of Devices able to access the secure carparking area was reduced following the passing of Motion 13.

• [21] The applicant seeks an order to invalidate Motion 13 which authorised the recording of the new by-law 30. The new by-law 30 differed from the old by-law 30 by including the capacity for the body corporate to monitor and regulate access to lots and common property. In particular, by-law 30.3 stated the body corporate would make 5 Devices available per lot to access the lots and common property. By-law 30.4 stated the number of Devices programmed to allow each owner access to the secure carpark area would be limited to the number of exclusive use carparks allocated to them. As the relevant areas are common property, I will consider the rights of an owner to access common property and the validity of Motion 13.
• [22] I will consider whether the inclusion of by-law 30.11 within Motion 13 invalidates the proposed change to by-law 30.
• [23] I will also consider the body corporate's requirement to act reasonably and whether it failed to do so in passing Motion 13.
• [24] I will further consider the second order sought that the body corporate program additional Devices to all common property and carpark areas.
• [25] As the body corporate submitted the application was lodged outside the required timeframe, I will also consider this. If I am satisfied the application was lodged outside the required timeframe, I will also consider whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances to waive the timeframe.

• [26] Section 35(1) of the Act states that common property is owned by the owners of the lots included in the scheme as tenants in common.
• [27] In the matter of Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd v Western Australian Club Incorporated, Brennan J stated:[9]

It is an essential characteristic of a tenancy in common that each of the tenants has the right to occupy the whole of the property in common with the others.

• [28] This means that each owner, as a tenant in common, has the equal right and entitlement to use the whole of the common property.
• [29] An owner's right to occupy or use common property is not absolute, however. The Act states that each member of the body corporate is bound by the CMS which contain by-laws for the administration, management and control over common property.[10] The Act also states conditions may be applied to the use and enjoyment of common property.[11]

• [30] Section 152(1) of the Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control common property reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners.
• [31] The Act also permits the body corporate to undertake dealings in relation to common property, including selling or disposing of common property.[12] In matters where the body corporate seeks to sell or dispose of common property, the authorisation must be passed by resolution without dissent.[13]
• [32] In determining what resolution is required to authorise a decision about the proposed use of common property, the Courts have considered the effect of the proposed use.[14] The Courts have also considered whether other lot owners still retain access to the relevant common property, whether they would be excluded from using the common property and whether the proposed use would continue indefinitely.[15]
• [33] The applicant argued the effect of Motion 13 was that it disposed of his presumptive rights of an owner to ownership of, and access to, common property and that it created an area of exclusive use common property by preventing owners without exclusive use carparks from accessing the common property in the secure carpark area, including the driveways and roads.
• [34] The body corporate submitted Motion 13 was to prevent the misuse of the Devices where other owners and third parties parked in exclusive use carparks that were not their own.
• [35] To determine the effect of Motion 13, I will first consider the changes made to by-law 30 by the passing of Motion 13.

• [36] The previous CMS recorded on 28 June 2024 recorded by-law 30 as follows:

30.1 The Body Corporate may arrange and operate a security system to monitor the Common Property.

30.2 The security system (including but not limited to, security cameras and cabling) installed on Common Property shall be, and remain, the property of the Body Corporate.

30.3 Owners and Occupiers must not do anything, or permit anything to be done, that may affect the operation of any Body Corporate security system.

30.4 The Body Corporate is not liable for any injury to or death of a person or loss of or damage to property (whether to Common Property or a Lot) arising because:

1. the security system is not operating; and
2. the security system fails to operate as intended.

• [37] The current CMS records the new by-law 30 as follows:

30.1 The Body Corporate may operate a security and access control system ('Security System') to monitor and regulate access to Lots and the Common Property.

30.2 The Security System may utilise keys, fobs or remotes ('Devices'), and/or codes.

30.3 The Body Corporate will make available, at no cost Five (5) Devices per Lot to access Lots and the Common Property.

30.4 Further to by-law 30.3, the number of Devices per Lot programmed to allow access to the secured car park area will be equivalent to the number of secured car parking spaces allocated as exclusive use to the relevant Lot.

30.5 If an owner requires additional and/or replacement Devices or a further Device to be programmed to access the secured car park area, the prior written consent of the Committee or the Body Corporate will be required.

30.6 An Owner who is issued with a Device and/or code for the Security System must:

1. upon ceasing to be an Owner in the Scheme, return the Device to the Body Corporate or hand it/them over to the new Owner;
2. upon ceasing to the Owner of a Lot in the Scheme, stop using the code and destroy any document within its control that contains the code;
3. take reasonable steps to ensure that if it is provided to any Occupier of their Lot, that the Occupier returns the Device to the Owner when the Occupier ceased to be an Occupier; and
4. take reasonable steps to ensure that if it is provided to any Occupier of their Lot, that the Occupier stops using the code upon ceasing to be an Occupier of the relevant Lot and destroys any document within its control that contains the code.

30.7 An Owner or Occupier who is issued with a Device and/or code for the Security System must:

1. not duplicate a Device or cause or permit a Device to be duplicated without the prior written approval of the Committee or the Body Corporate;
2. notify the Body Corporate as soon as possible if a Device is lost or misplaced; and
3. notify the Body Corporate if they reasonably believe that unauthorised access to their code may have occurred.

30.8 After use, Owners and Occupiers must close doors and gates that form part of the Security System.

30.9 Owners and Occupiers must not do anything, or permit anything to be done, that may affect the operation of the Security System.

30.10 The Body Corporate is not liable for injury to or death of a person or loss of or damage to property (whether to Common Property or a Lot) arising because:

1. the Security System is not operating; or
2. the Security System fails to operate as intended.

• [38] The effect of by-law 30.3 and 30.4 is that each owner is given 5 Devices, the number of which programmed to access the secure carpark area being equal to the owner's exclusive use parking spaces.

• [39] As stated above, a body corporate may sell or otherwise dispose of part of the common property if authorised by resolution without dissent.[16] Further, the Courts have considered the effect of the proposed use of the common property in determining what resolution is required and consider 'dispose', 'disposition' and 'disposal' are wide in their effect.
• [40] The Act states that the resolution without dissent is required to make changes to CMS unless the change is limited to a by-law that is not an exclusive use by-law.[17] However, the Courts have considered the effect of the proposed use of common property when determining what resolution is required to authorise a decision.
• [41] The effect of Motion 13 is that it has changed the rights of owners with exclusive use carparks by reducing the number of Devices that can access the secure carpark area. Further, the Devices provided to owners who do not have exclusive use carparks are unable to access the secure carpark area unless approval is received from the committee to program one or more of the Devices.
• [42] An inspection of the survey plan and CMS indicates that the exclusive use carparks in the secure carpark area are exclusive use common property, while the remaining areas, including the roads and elevators, are common property. As stated above, each owner, as a tenant in common, has the equal right and entitlement to use the whole of the common property.
• [43] In the matter of Katsikalis v Body Corporate for "The Centre", Douglas J stated:[18]

In making a resolution of this type, however, the body corporate is potentially interfering with the rights of unit holders to the common property and should be required to make it clear just how those rights are to be affected.

• [44] In considering the requirement of the body corporate to make clear how the owner's rights are to be affected as stated by Douglas J, I note the explanatory notes state reducing the number of Devices per lot was necessary for security purposes and that if owners or occupiers required more than 5 Devices, they could request these from the committee. I also note the explanatory notes did not state that, of the 5 Devices provided, only a number equal to the lot's allocated exclusive use carparks would be programmed to access the secure access carpark.
• [45] Under the previous by-law 30, all owners' access devices allowed them to access and use the common property in the secure carpark area. Under the new by-law 30, only owners with exclusive use carparks can access the secure access carpark.
• [46] In considering whether the effect of Motion 13 was to dispose of the owner's rights to common property, I acknowledge owners who do not have exclusive use carparks are now unable to access the common property in the secure carpark area with their Devices. However, by-law 30 allows for the committee to consider, and approve, requests to program the Devices to permit access to the secure access carpark.
• [47] Further, while limiting the number of Devices may make accessing the secure access carpark more difficult for those with exclusive use carparks, their access has not been disposed of.
• [48] On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the overall effect of Motion 13 is that it has disposed of the rights of owners to access the relevant areas of common property. As such, I am not satisfied that Motion 13 required resolution without dissent.

• [49] I note Motion 13 also proposed the following change to by-law 30:

30.11 Charge $30 (Thirty dollars each) (including GST) for

1. a replacement key, fob or remote; or
2. an additional key, fob or remote.

• [50] The Act states a by-law that is not an exclusive use by-law must not impose a monetary liability on an owner or occupier of a lot.[19]
• [51] The applicant argued a by-law cannot impose a monetary liability and this part of by-law 30 was invalid and void.
• [52] The body corporate submitted by-law 30.11 was included within Motion 13 as a numerical and formatting error and was not intended to form part of by-law 30.
• [53] It is not in dispute that by-law 30.11 was not included in by-law 30 in the new CMS. I acknowledge the applicant argued that the body corporate did not have the authority to not include by-law 30.11 it after Motion 13 passed and the body corporate submitted it was included in Motion 13 as a formatting and numerical error.
• [54] I am satisfied that by-law 30.11 as included in Motion 13 was invalid as it was contrary to section 180(6) of the Act. However, as by-law 30.11 can be readily excised without affecting the remainder of by-law 30, I am not satisfied that its inclusion in Motion 13 would affect the validity of the motion as a whole.
• [55] I do not consider it was appropriate for the body corporate to omit by-law 30.11 from the recorded by-law when it was included in Motion 13, even when it was by mistake, without a further resolution. However, if by-law 30.11 had been recorded, an order to invalidate and remove it would have been warranted. Accordingly, where it was not recorded, there is no need for any further order on the matter.

• [56] When considering a motion, the body corporate is required to act reasonably in making, or not making, a decision about the motion.[20] When a committee is making decisions on behalf of the body corporate, the committee must also act reasonably.[21]
• [57] In Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall, Justice Carmody stated that reasonable decision making involves:[22]

...an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations" that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue at hand including predictable future possibilities and risks.

• [58] Justice Carmody also stated the following in considering whether a decision was reasonably reached:[23]

A legally reasonably 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.

• [59] This means that the body corporate is not deemed to have acted unreasonably simply by reaching a different conclusion than sought by the applicant. Where a decision by a body corporate is challenged, the body corporate does not need to demonstrate that it acted reasonably. The applicant must satisfy an adjudicator that the body corporate acted unreasonably in reaching their decision.
• [60] When the actions and decisions of body corporates are challenged as unreasonable, the role of an adjudicator is not to put themselves in the shoes of the body corporate, substitute their own views, or conclude that another decision should be preferred over the decision that was made.[24] If the adjudicator is satisfied that relevant factors have been considered, the committee's decision will stand unless the adjudicator is satisfied the decision is not legally reasonable.[25] That is, the decision will only be overturned if the adjudicator finds the decision lacks "an evident and intelligible justification when all relevant matters [are] considered."[26]
• [61] The applicant argued the body corporate failed to act reasonably in proposing and passing Motion 13. In determining whether this was unreasonable, I have considered the applicant's arguments as outlined in their application. I have also considered the Act's limitation on a by-law's regulation of common property.

• [62] The applicant argued that providing a limited number of programmed Devices equal to the lot's exclusive use carparks impacted on owners who none or fewer exclusive use carparks than others.
• [63] Within the submissions provided by other owners in support of the application, it was argued that reduced access was restrictive, inconvenient, did not suit everyone's circumstances and made it difficult for those who rented their lots to attend meetings and inspect the property.
• [64] The body corporate submitted that there was nothing preventing the applicant from using his 2 Devices to access the secure carpark area when not renting out his lot.
• [65] Within the submissions provided by other owners in support of the body corporate, it was argued that the number of Devices that could access the secure carpark area was sufficient. While it was also argued that it would be unfair for one owner to be granted more Devices than others, I do not accept this given by-law 30.5 permitted the committee to consider requests to program additional Devices to access the secure carpark area.
• [66] In considering the evidence before me, I accept that there are likely to be circumstances where one programmed Device per exclusive use carpark will be unreasonably restrictive or inconvenient on occupiers. Further, I do not consider the ability for owners or occupiers to ask the committee to program additional Devices to access the carpark does not resolve the inherent impact caused by the restriction on access to the carpark area.
• [67] For the sake of completeness, there is nothing within the by-laws limiting the number of vehicles to be parked in an exclusive use carpark at the same time (for example, in the case of motorcycles) or at different times, or the number of users of a lot who may be able to park in the exclusive use car space for a lot. As such, I consider limiting the number of programmed Devices to the number of carparks is likely to cause unreasonable difficulty in circumstances where multiple vehicles may be parked in the same exclusive use carpark.
• [68] On that basis, I consider that limiting the number of Devices that are programmed to access the carpark will have an unreasonable impact on owners and occupiers who have less exclusive use carparks than the total number of Devices allocated to each lot.

• [69] The body corporate submitted that in early 2023, reports had been received about unlawful parking in the secure carpark area due to the misuse of the Devices. The body corporate further submitted the purpose of Motion 13 was to revert access to the secure carpark area to its pre-April 2021 status.
• [70] The applicant argued in his reply that the concerns of parking misuse had not been defined or supported by evidence.
• [71] There is no evidence before me that there was misuse of the secure carpark area as a result of the number of Devices programmed to access that area. However, I note the onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances. In the absence of further evidence, I consider the security of the secure carpark area was a relevant consideration in deciding Motion 13.

• [72] The Act states that an adjudication application seeking to declare a resolution of the body corporate void must be made within 3 months after the meeting at which the resolution was passed or purported to be passed.[27]
• [73] The body corporate submitted that the application was lodged approximately 4 months after Motion 13 passed. The applicant replied that the application was lodged on time.
• [74] The meeting at which Motion 13 was carried 4 July 2024 while the application was lodged on 4 October 2024.
• [75] While the body corporate expressed concerns the application was lodged outside of the 3 month timeframe, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the application was received on the final day of the 3 month timeframe. As such, I am not satisfied the application should be dismissed for being lodged outside the requisite timeframe.

• [76] I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that a resolution without dissent was required to pass Motion 13. Further, it is not in dispute that the necessary special resolution was achieved. As by-law 30 limits the number of Devices that can access the secure access carpark and allows for owners to request additional Devices be programmed to allow access, I am not satisfied the effect of by-law 30 was to dispose of common property.
• [77] The applicant also argued the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing Motion 13. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied in the circumstances that the body corporate acted unreasonably as the impact of Motion 13 caused an unreasonable restriction and difficulty for owners and occupiers accessing the secure access carpark. While it is not unreasonable to take steps to address concerns of parking misuse, I do not consider that it is reasonable to achieve this by removing the ability for owners and occupiers who do not have exclusive use carparks to access areas of common property with the Devices provided to them.
• [78] As stated above, an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances. In considering the second order sought by the applicant, and as I am satisfied that it is unreasonable to prevent those without exclusive use carparks from accessing the secure access carpark I consider it appropriate in the circumstances to vary Motion 13's changes to by-law 30. As such, I order that by-law 30.4 is void, and all Devices provided under by-law 30.3 should be reprogrammed to access the secure access carpark.
• [79] I also consider it appropriate in the circumstances to impose an order requiring the body corporate to record a new CMS to reflect the changes made by this order within the next 3 months.

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

[9] [1993] HCA 45; (1993) 177 CLR 635 at [3].

[10] Sections 59(2) and 169(1)(a) of the Act.

[12] Sections 154-159 and 161-163 of the Act.

[13] Section 174(2)(a)(i) of the Accommodation Module.

[14] Katsikalis v Body Corporate for "The Centre" [2009] QCA 77 at [30]; Dansur v Body Corporate for Cairns Aquarius CTS 1439 & Anor [2022] QCATA 15 at [21]- [22].

[15] Katsikalis v Body Corporate for "The Centre" [2009] QCA 77 at [26]- [28].

[16] Sections 154 of the Act and 174(2)(a)(i) of the Accommodation Module.

[17] Sections 62(2) and 62(3)(a) of the Act.

[18] Katsikalis v Body Corporate for "The Centre" [2009] QCA 77 at [27] - [28].

[22] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [42].

[23] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [47].

[24] Seabreeze On Reid [2022] QBCCMCmr 246 at [11]; Casablanca Palms [2020] QBCCMCmr 486 at [7].

[25] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [46].

[26] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [57]- [61].

[27] Sections 242(1)(b) and 242(2)(b) of the Act.