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

ADMINISTRATOR - whether the body corporate is dysfunctional - whether an administrator should be appointed - RECORDS - whether the body corporate has failed to provide access to records.

Act, ss 205, 278, 301; Standard Module, s 233

• [1] This application is about the administration of the body corporate and access to records.
• [2] The applicant says the body corporate is fundamentally dysfunctional. They say it has failed to convene valid general meetings, circulate motions, provide financial records, and has circulated misinformation about maintenance responsibilities. The applicant seeks the appointment of an independent administrator and access to body corporate records.
• [3] In deciding this application, I will outline the body corporate's fundamental responsibilities and consider whether the orders sought are warranted in the circumstances.

• [4] Chevron Riviera community titles scheme 31139 (Chevron Riviera) is a 4-lot scheme on Chevron Island. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 154144. The survey plan shows the scheme is a building format plan of subdivision.
• [5] The application seeks the following orders:

1a. That Andrew Baker be appointed as an independent Administrator to the Body Corporate for Chevron Riviera CTS 31139 pursuant to section 276 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), with the Administrator's reasonable fees and expenses to be met from the funds of the Body Corporate.

1b. That Andrew Baker be appointed as an Administrator to the Body Corporate for Chevron Riviera CTS 31139 for a period of three (3) months, or such other limited period as the Adjudicator considers appropriate, with powers and functions directed specifically to:

(a) convening and conducting a valid annual general meeting in compliance with the Act and the Standard Module Regulation;

(b) ensuring that proper financial records, budgets and statements are prepared and circulated to all lot owners;

(c) regularising and directing the performance of statutory maintenance and insurance responsibilities; and

(d) taking such further steps as are necessary to restore lawful governance and administration of the scheme.

1c. That Andrew Baker be appointed as an Administrator for such period, with such powers, and upon such terms as the Adjudicator considers just and equitable to restore proper governance and administration of the scheme, including but not limited to:

(a) working alongside the existing committee to provide independent oversight, support, and direction;

(b) ensuring that statutory obligations for governance, meetings, financial transparency, and maintenance are met; and

(c) guiding the Body Corporate back to self-governance in an orderly and compliant manner.

The Administrator's reasonable fees and expenses are to be met from the funds of the Body Corporate.

1. That the Body Corporate for Chevron Riviera CTS 31139 be ordered to provide the applicant with access to inspect and/or copies of the following body corporate records in accordance with section 205 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld):
   1. All financial statements, budgets, and levy contribution schedules for the past three (3) financial years.
   2. All minutes and notices of committee meetings and annual general meetings for the past three (3) years.
   3. All current insurance policies and related correspondence with insurers or brokers for the scheme.
   4. Any engagement contracts or authorities for body corporate managers, service contractors, or other agents acting on behalf of the Body Corporate.
   5. All correspondence issued to lot owners regarding maintenance responsibilities, repairs, or settlements with insurers (including September 2025 correspondence).

• [6] 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]

• [7] This application was lodged on 25 September 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[3] which was amended.[4]
• [8] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[5] The owners of Lot 4 and committee members, and the co-owner of the applicant's Lot 2, made submissions. The owners of Lots 1 and 3 verbally acknowledged receipt of the notice of application but did not make a submission. The applicant did not obtain or respond to the submissions.[6]
• [9] The application was then referred to department adjudication.[7] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[8]

• [10] Submissions from the chairperson, apparently on behalf of the other owners, and the owners of Lot 4, oppose the application. The submitted material variously includes:
  1. The owners of the other 3 lots want to continue managing the scheme collectively, as has been done to date. The proposal to engage external management or secretarial services was put to the vote and rejected by the majority. The majority agrees external management is unnecessary and would be an inappropriate and excessive expense.
  2. The body corporate has acted reasonably and can carry out its duties. It rejects that it is dysfunctional or incapable of meaningful engagement.
  3. No formal annual general meeting (AGM) minutes were recorded in recent years due to health issues or owners being overseas, not neglect or mismanagement. But owners communicate regularly and work together on maintenance and administrative matters.
  4. At all times the property has been maintained and levies paid, except by the applicant.
  5. They have experienced difficulties with the applicant declining to attend meetings, declining to communicate, and withholding fees. Meeting dates have been changed to accommodate him, but he continued to decline to attend. They have made every reasonable effort to include him in decisions and discussions.
  6. All owners have access to bank details, quotes, and insurance information. No fees or charges apply to any owner wishing to view financial records.
  7. The applicant has been kept informed of all matters and invited to inspect records. All requested information and supporting documentation has been supplied.
  8. They are self-funded retirees who live peacefully and the ongoing conflict and pressure from these proceedings have been stressful and detrimental.
• [11] The material submitted includes minutes of an AGM held on 29 September 2025.
• [12] The co-owner of Lot 2 supports the application. They say an independent administrator is necessary to restore lawful governance, proper maintenance, and transparency.

• [13] I will consider the issues regarding the request for an administrator and the request for records separately, noting the legislation and the basis for an order on each. However, given the circumstances, I will provide some general information about the management of bodies corporate for the information of all owners.

• [14] As soon as a person buys a lot in a community titles scheme, they become a member of the body corporate. The body corporate is responsible for administering the common property and scheme assets, including obtaining insurance, maintaining common property, enforcing the by-laws, managing finances, and complying with a range of other statutory obligations. All owners share the responsibility for ensuring their body corporate meets its obligations.
• [15] The body corporate legislation is lengthy and complex. However, particularly in a small scheme, it does not necessarily have to be onerous. There are some fundamental requirements, and I will note the most significant of these for Chevron Rivera.
• [16] It is common in small schemes for owners and committees to act based on discussions, informal meetings, and direct agreements. That sort of communication may be valuable. However, to make valid and binding decisions, the legislation sets out specific processes that must be used. Valid decisions cannot be made by circulating an email or having discussion.
• [17] General meetings are the primary forum in which body corporate decisions are made. An AGM must be held each year within 3 months after the end of the scheme's financial year.[9] A body corporate can also have other general meetings, called extraordinary general meetings. General meetings are called by a committee resolution or on the request of owners,[10] and should be conducted in accordance with the legislation.[11]
• [18] Owners do not have to attend or participate in general meetings. But all owners must be given proper notice of each meeting and the opportunity to vote, usually either in person or by submitting a voting paper. Notice of a general meeting must be given in writing to all owners at least 21 days before the date of a meeting.[12] The notice must include:[13]
  1. the time and place of the meeting
  2. the agenda, setting out all motions submitted by owners and the committee[14]
  3. a proxy form[15] and, if any owner is a corporate owner, a company nominee form
  4. a voting paper for all open motions and a secret voting paper and envelopes for any motion to be decided by secret ballot
  5. any explanatory material required (for example, an owner's explanatory note),[16] and
  6. any other document required under the legislation.
• [19] In addition to submitted motion, each AGM agenda must include the 'statutory motions':[17]
  1. a motion confirming the minutes of the previous general meeting for the scheme[18]
  2. a motion presenting the body corporate's accounts for the past financial year[19]
  3. a motion to appoint an auditor or not audit the body corporate's accounts[20]
  4. a motion adopting administrative and sinking fund budgets for the next financial year[21]
  5. a motion setting contributions and the due dates for payment,[22] and
  6. a motion reviewing the body corporate's insurance policies.[23]
• [20] 'Full and accurate' minutes of all general meetings must be given to all owners within 21 days of the date of the meeting.[24] The legislation sets out what must be included in the minutes.
• [21] A body corporate must have a committee, unless it has authorised the engagement of a body corporate manager (BCM) to carry out the functions of the committee.[25] The committee is responsible for day-to-day administration. It can make decisions for the body corporate at a committee meeting or through a vote outside a meeting, if it is not a restricted issue for the committee.[26] The legislation sets out processes for committee decision-making.[27]
• [22] In this scheme, the committee must have a minimum of 3 voting members to a maximum of 4. The members comprise a chairperson, treasurer and secretary (with one person able to hold two or three of those positions) and any ordinary members.[28] The committee is appointed at each AGM, as the last item on the agenda. Owners nominate for committee positions in response to a notice inviting nominations.[29] An election is required if there are more nominations than positions, with detailed provisions for conducting elections.[30]
• [23] The body corporate must keep records, including meeting material, financial records, notices given to the body corporate, insurance policies, and correspondence sent and received.[31]
• [24] A body corporate has an obligation to enforce its CMS including the by-laws.[32]
• [25] A body corporate must have insurance for common property, body corporate assets, public risk, and any building that includes more than one lot or has a common wall.[33]
• [26] A body corporate also has maintenance responsibilities, which are determined by reference to the registered survey plan for the scheme. There appears to be a belief that this scheme is created under a 'standard format plan'. That may be a misunderstanding. While the body corporate is governed by the 'Standard Module', the survey plan shows it is registered as a building format plan of subdivision (a BFP), not a standard format plan.
• [27] In a BFP, boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[34] A lot owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except where it is the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[35] A body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[36] Given the boundaries, the exterior walls of lots, for example, are usually common property.
• [28] In a BFP, a body corporate must also maintain addition things that are not common property in good condition, being: railings, parapets, and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property; doors, windows, and fittings in the boundary of a lot and common property; and roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property.[37] The body corporate must also maintain foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection, and essential supporting framework including load-bearing walls, in structurally sound condition.[38]
• [29] Finally, a body corporate and its committee must act reasonably in carrying out their functions, including in making or not making decisions.[39] In this regard, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has said:[40]

The BCCMA is a lengthy, technical and complex instrument, with no fewer than six sets of subordinate and similarly complex "module regulations". It cannot be the case that the legislature expected all, or even most committee members of a body corporate, small, large or very large, to be experts in corporate law, or masters of community management. Indeed, the BCCMA implicitly recognises that, if this legislation were at all times, and in all circumstances applied with the utmost rigour and most precious attention to detail, its objects and policies would be retarded by endemic disputation, rather than advanced.

The direction that a "body corporate must act reasonably" in the performance of its "general functions" does not suggest that every minor irregularity should be pounced on to impede or paralyse the normal conduct of business. The Code of Conduct for committee members does not demand administrative perfection, but simply directs them to "take reasonable steps" to comply with the BCCMA.

• [30] Non-compliance with the procedural requirements will not automatically invalidate a general or committee meeting or a resolution. And non-compliance may be able to be remedied by a subsequent resolution ratifying the affected decision. However, the body corporate should always endeavour to comply with the statutory requirements in the first instance.

• [31] The applicant seeks the appointment of an administrator. They say the body corporate has not convened valid AGMs for years, they have not been given access to financial information, and the body corporate has circulated incorrect information about maintenance responsibilities. They say the committee has disregarded their attempts to resolve the issues.
• [32] The applicant acknowledges that a body corporate has a right to govern itself. They say self-governance has been given a chance and they refrained from intervention for years in the hope that the committee would comply with its obligations. But they say intervention is required where statutory responsibilities remain unmet.

• [33] The responsibility for self-management is an inherent aspect of community titles schemes.[41]
• [34] The legislation empowers an adjudicator to appoint an administrator and authorise the administrator to perform obligations of the body corporate, its committee, or a member of its committee under this Act or the CMS.[42] An administrator appointed by an adjudicator has the powers given to the administrator under the order.[43] Appointed administrators may undertake similar functions to a BCM, but the role is quite distinct.
• [35] From time-to-time adjudicators appoint administrators to 'restart' a body corporate, particularly if it has ceased to hold general meetings or there is no committee who is able to call a meeting. Adjudicators rarely appoint administrators on a long-term or ongoing basis. Such appointments owners deprive owners of the right to decide for themselves how their body corporate will be administered and can have a significant cost.
• [36] In overturning the decision of an adjudicator to appoint an administrator in scheme with considerable long-term disagreement, the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal noted:[44]

Appointment of an administrator is within the power of an adjudicator (section 276(3) and Schedule 5 of the BCCM Act), no criteria are prescribed for doing so, but it is a significant step since it takes responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the body corporate out of the hands of the committee and vests it in the administrator. An applicant must therefore demonstrate to the required standard that such a step is appropriate. Typically, without attempting to be exhaustive, there will be evidence that the body corporate is so dysfunctional that it cannot operate properly within the statutory framework that governs it, or that there is a well founded suspicion, on the part of an applicant for appointment of an administrator of financial malpractice within the body corporate, or that there is conduct that amounts to undue oppression in the conduct of its affairs. Without more, mere disagreements between the members, especially when the disputes are due to reasonably held differences of view and there are means available to resolve them by reference to external processes.

• [37] The legislation provides several avenues for owners to address concerns about the actions and decisions of their committee and body corporate. Owners can submit motions. They can request a general meeting be called to consider proposed motions. They can nominate for committee membership. And if internal steps are unsuccessful, they can bring a dispute resolution application challenging particular actions and decisions.
• [38] In that context, an applicant must provide substantive evidence that the administration of the body corporate generally, or at least on a specific issue or in a specific area, has broken down irretrievably or is in significant disarray and that the body corporate is fundamentally breaching its obligations. An administrator would then displace the power of the committee and body corporate to make decisions and manage the scheme either generally or on a specific matter.

• [39] The applicant has nominated a person to be appointed as administrator and that person provided consent to being appointed and outlined their fees. The submissions do not indicate any objection to the nominee, but rather do not support an administrator at all.
• [40] The applicant provides 3 alternative orders. The first (and apparently preferred) does not indicate the duration of the proposed appointment or clearly identify the proposed functions. The second proposes a 3-month appointment with reasonably clearly articulated functions. The third is for a period to be set by the adjudicator as necessary to 'restore proper governance and administration' but it is not clear how that purpose is to be assessed. The applicant does not explain the different orders or the basis for one or other to be made.

• [41] Clearly the applicant would prefer an external body corporate manager appointed for the scheme. But that preference does not override the preference of the majority of owners to be self-managed, without the substantiated basis for an adjudicator to intervene.
• [42] I acknowledge the concerns of the owners of Lot 2 about the administration of this body corporate. I have no evidence to suggest any bad faith on the part of the body corporate or any of its members. They may well be genuine in their endeavours to manage the scheme. But it does seem the body corporate has not complied with the legislative requirements in many respects.
• [43] Holding a properly convened AGM is a core responsibility of a body corporate and cannot be omitted because it is not convenient. The applicant said in a letter in March 2025 that an AGM had not been held since September 2019, although it seems some sort of meeting was held in September 2022. The submitted correspondence indicates formally convened meetings were not held in 2023 and 2024. It appears a meeting was proposed in April 2025 following the applicant's request, but the applicant objected to it, and I assume it did not proceed.
• [44] Notwithstanding that, it is evident an AGM was held in September 2025.
• [45] On its face, there were defects in the 2025 AGM notice and the minutes. I have insufficient information to determine whether those defects would be sufficient to invalidate the meeting or any purported resolutions. However, the amended application does not seek an order to invalidate the AGM and so the meeting has effect unless and until it is invalidated.
• [46] There also appear to be misunderstandings about some maintenance responsibilities.
• [47] But instances of non-compliance do not necessarily evidence widespread maladministration. While the applicant objects to the actions and approach of the committee, he has not provided evidence that the body corporate's administration is significantly in disarray. The correspondence in the application does not evidence the lack of engagement or bad faith claimed by the applicant. Although there is evident technical non-compliance, the applicant has not, for example, established that the body corporate does not have a functioning committee, hold insurance, or keep records. It does not evidence that it is substantively failing to manage its finances or meet its maintenance responsibilities. The applicant also has not established that the body corporate is fundamentally incapable of managing its own affairs with further information and guidance.
• [48] Accordingly, I do not consider the current circumstances yet warrant the appointment of an administrator. That said, the body corporate must take greater care to ensure it complies with the legislation in future. If it does not, an administrator appointment may subsequently be necessary. Alternatively, having regard to the detail outlined regarding the body corporate's obligations, other owners may reconsider and decide it would be preferable to engage a body corporate manage to assist the committee with its administrative responsibilities.

• [49] The applicant says the body corporate has not provided access to financial records, minutes, insurance documents, or correspondence despite repeated requests. They say the failure to provide records has prevented owners understanding the financial position of the body corporate, the basis for insurance settlements, and the discharge of maintenance obligations. They say the lack of transparency has exacerbated the dysfunction in the scheme.

• [50] The Act defines 'records' as "...for a body corporate, means the rolls, registers and other documents kept by the body corporate under this Act (including under the regulation module applying to the scheme)."[45] The legislation sets out the requirements for keeping and disposing of body corporate records.[46]
• [51] Body corporate records belong to all owners. Under section 205 of the Act, a body corporate must permit an 'interested person' to inspect its records or give them a copy of records, within 7 days receiving a written request and the prescribed fee.[47] An owner is an interested person.
• [52] The legislation does not generally impose restrictions on why a person wants records or how those records will be used. There is no limit on the records that may be accessed, except for material reasonably believed to be defamatory or protected by legal professional privilege.
• [53] The only relevant considerations for a body corporate regarding a request for records are:
  1. whether the person has made a written request
  2. whether the person has paid the required fee
  3. whether the person is an 'interested person'
  4. whether the request is for records held by or for the body corporate
  5. whether the record is reasonably believed to contain defamatory material
  6. whether the record is subject to legal professional privilege.
• [54] Notably, interested persons are entitled to copies of records instead of (or in addition to) inspecting them. But if a person wants copies, their request needs to be sufficiently explicit to enable all records that fall within the scope of the request to be readily identified. If the request is not sufficiently clear, it may be reasonable for the body corporate to require the person to inspect all the records to enable them to identify documents that relate to their request.

• [55] The correspondence in the application about records requests include:
  1. It appears the applicant requested current financial statements and a quote referred to in voting papers on 29 August, although a copy of that request has not been provided.
  2. On 30 August the chairperson responded saying bank account statements were available for inspection by appointment.
  3. The applicant replied on 30 August, referring to their 29 August request, and then also seeking the most recent budgets, meeting minutes for the last 2 years, records of any quotes or contracts relating to balcony or other maintenance works, and the valuation of the building. The email noted they were an interested person and the statutory penalty for not complying with section 205 of the Act.
  4. Also on 30 August, the applicant asked for records relating to window, door, balcony, or building envelope repairs, including quotes, approvals, minutes or correspondence.
  5. On 2 September the applicant referred to their requests of 29 and 30 August, saying compliance was required by 6 September. They asked that the requested records be provided with copies to all owners.
  6. On 14 September the co-owner of Lot 2 asked for a copy of the financial statement for the body corporate's bank for 2024-2025. The secretary responded the same day saying they could provide copies that week.
  7. On 19 September the co-owner noted receipt of bank statements covering 3 periods but advised that statements covering 2 periods had not been provided.
• [56] It is evident the applicant has not paid, been asked to pay, or offered to pay, a fee associated with any records request. Both sides say owners are never expected to pay a fee for records.

• [57] The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate provide the applicant with access to inspect or be given copies of a list of records.
• [58] The submissions suggest all records have been provided. In the absence of a response to the submissions from the applicant, I am unclear if that is the case. However, as there are fundamental issues affecting the basis for the order sought to be made, I do not consider it necessary to investigate that further.
• [59] Where the applicant seeks to inspect the records, they provide no evidence they have been denied an inspection. The chairperson said records could be inspected by appointment. The applicant does not establish that they tried to arrange an inspection and were refused.
• [60] Also, the applicant has not evidenced they previously requested all the records sought in the order, such that they have substantiated the existence of a dispute in regard to each:
  1. The applicant seeks financial statements, budgets, and levy contribution schedules for the past 3 financial years. But the submitted correspondence only indicates requests for the current financial statement and most recent budgets.
  2. The applicant seeks minutes and notices of committee meetings and annual general meetings for the past 3 years. But the submitted correspondence only indicates requests for meeting minutes for 2 years.
  3. The applicant seeks current insurance policies and related correspondence with insurers or brokers. But I cannot identify any request for such records.
  4. The applicant seeks engagement contracts or authorities for body corporate managers, service contractors, or other agents acting on behalf of the body corporate. But again, I cannot identify any request for such records in the submitted material.
  5. The applicant requests all correspondence issued to owners about maintenance responsibilities, repairs, or settlements with insurers. I am unclear if this is intended to encompass the request for correspondence about window, door, balcony, or building envelope repairs.
• [61] Also, the applicant has not established any records they have not yet been given exist. The body corporate cannot provide records that do not exist. If, for example, the body corporate had not held meetings for 2 years it could not provide meeting materials for that period.
• [62] Finally, the applicant relies on section 205 of the Act as the basis for an order. However, the obligation in that section to provide copies of records, or permit an inspection, within 7 days of a written request only arises if the person requesting has paid the prescribed fee. I appreciate the body corporate has not sought or required a fee, and the applicant may have paid a fee if they were asked to. But an order is only warranted if there has been a contravention of the legislation. Without the fee being paid, there has been no contravention yet.
• [63] In this regard QCAT has said:[48]

... s 205(2) of the BCCM Act is quite specific in its terms in that the records must be provided 'within 7 days after receiving a written request from an interested person accompanied by the fee prescribed under the regulation'. It is accepted that no fee was accompanied with the request, therefore the second provides that there was no obligation on the BCM to comply with the request within the seven day time frame. This seems to me to be correct. The section is clear in its terms and the undertaking proffered by the applicant does not satisfy the section. In addition, the section provides for a penalty for non-compliance therefore its application must be applied strictly. Clearly, the non-payment of the prescribed fee would raise a valid defence to any enforcement of a penalty.

• [64] In another matter QCAT similarly noted that where the prescribed fee had not been paid, the request was not valid and was not effective in law_._[49]
• [65] In the circumstances, the applicant has not established that the body corporate has breached its obligation to provide access to records such that orders are warranted to remedy that.

• [66] For the reasons outlined, the application is dismissed.
• [67] The body corporate is entitled to continue with self-management manage if that is the preference of the majority, providing the committee and owners make reasonable endeavours to comply with the legislation. I encourage owners to use the resources of the Commissioner's office to assist them. Extensive information about all aspects of bodies corporate operations is available online at: www.qld.gov.au/bodycorporate. Owners and committee members can also contact the Information Service on freecall 1800 060 119 or by completing an online enquiry.
• [68] If the owners of Lot 2 have not received all records they seek, they can make a further written request asking to inspect all or specified records, or asking for copies of specified records, or both. The body corporate does not need to wait for payment of a fee to action that request. Acting reasonably, it should action a request promptly and advise the applicant promptly if does not hold any requested records. If the body corporate seeks payment of the fee before actioning a request, it should promptly inform the applicant and (in the case of a request for copies) advise the relevant number of pages of documents so the applicant can pay the fee.
• [69] Finally, the applicant does not need to participate in meetings or otherwise engage with other owners. But particularly in such a small scheme, it may assist matters if all owners endeavoured to acknowledge the position of others and work more constructively on meeting their collective responsibilities.

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

[10] Sections 82 and 84 of the Standard Module

[11] Sections 81-93 and 97-118 of the Standard Module

[13] Section 87 of the Standard Module; BCCM Forms 4 and 5 are useful templates.

[14] See section 86 of the Standard Module regarding submitting motions and section 93 of the Standard Module about setting the agenda.

[15] The approved form, BCCM Form 6, must be used.

[17] See section 93(3) and the definition of 'statutory motion' in the schedule to the Standard Module

[18] Section 93(2)(a)(v) of the Standard Module

[19] Section 175(6) of the Standard Module

[20] Section 176 of the Standard Module

[21] Section 161 of the Standard Module

[22] Section 162 of the Standard Module

[23] Section 196 of the Standard Module

[24] Section 117 of the Standard Module

[25] Sections 74-78 of the Standard Module

[27] Sections 54-73 of the Standard Module

[29] Sections 16 and 17 of the Standard Module

[30] See sections 13-39 of the Standard Module

[31] Section 231 of the Standard Module, but noting also sections 224-230 of the Standard Module

[33] Sections 195 -205 of the Standard Module

[34] Sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[35] Section 211 of the Standard Module

[36] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[37] Section 180(2)(a) of the Standard Module

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

[39] Sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[40] Carroll and Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21, at 22-23

[41] Section 4(a) of the Act

[42] Noting Item 23 of schedule 5 to the Act

[44] Surace v Commisso [2009] QCCTBCCM 42, paragraph 44

[46] Section 231 of the Standard Module

[47] The prescribed fees are set out in section 233 of the Standard Module

[48] Ainsworth v Body Corporate for Viridian Noosa Residences CTS 34034 [2014] QCATA 176 at 54

[49] Body Corporate for the Rocks Resort CTS 9435 v East [2014] QCATA 308 at 13