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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES; MAINTENANCE - whether a general meeting of the body corporate is void where the body corporate had not passed an ordinary resolution proposing that a voter may be present personally at a meeting if they can cast a vote at the meeting by electronic means, and held the meeting by teleconference - where the applicant was not able to address the meeting in the manner they wished - whether an insurance motion was void for omitting the word 'improvement' - whether the applicant had standing to challenge a condition of approval for another lot owner's solar panel installation - whether the body corporate could resolve to paint an element of a lot it is not responsible for maintaining where there was no intention to recover the costs from relevant lot owners.

Act, s 101; Accommodation Module, ss 89, 106, 170, 202.

1. I declare that the resolution of Motion 10.1, as passed at a general meeting of the body corporate on 10 March 2025, was at all times void.

• [1] This application for final orders follows the applicant's unsuccessful application for interim orders, Circa Metro [2025] QBCCMCmr 114.
• [2] The applicant takes issue with the body corporate's annual general meeting being held entirely via videoconference. The meeting was to be held at the scheme, however the area was impacted by Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
• [3] The applicant seeks final orders that the meeting as a whole, and all motions passed, be deemed invalid. Further, that I order a new meeting be held.
• [4] I have made an order that the decision to pass one of the motions, which proposed the engagement of a contractor to paint the external surfaces of buildings at the scheme, was void. I have made this order as:
  1. The body corporate acknowledges that the contract's scope of works included painting lot entry doors, many of which the body corporate is not responsible for maintaining as many are not located within a boundary wall. There is no suggestion that there was an intention or understanding that the costs of those works would be recovered from lot owners.
  2. Whist the body corporate committee is not acting on the motion says and will propose a more appropriate scope of works at a future general meeting, the motion currently stands. It cannot be guaranteed that a motion to rescind the previous will pass. With this in mind, an order confirming the motion is void is justified.
• [5] While not argued in the application, the scope of works appears to include other surfaces that the body corporate may not have a responsibility to paint. I would encourage the body corporate to consider this issue further.
• [6] I have dismissed the rest of the application as:

1. I am not satisfied owners suffered any disadvantage from the annual general meeting being held 10 days late. 2. I am not satisfied owners, including the applicant, suffered disadvantage by the meeting being held only via teleconference, despite the body corporate not having passed a motion permitting voters to be considered present personally where appearing by videoconference in circumstances where: 1. The proposed location of the meeting was impacted by a tropical cyclone. 2. Voters were able to communicate verbally during the teleconference. 3. While the applicant suffered technical difficulties with the microphone, they were able to communicate with the meeting via the live chat function. 4. The legislation does not provide owners with an uninhibited right to discuss issues in whatever manner and format they desire at a general meeting. 5. The applicant has not provided evidence that any of their desired discussion points would have any impact on the outcome of the meeting.

1. The applicant has not satisfied me that any other motion is invalid, in particular: 1. I am not satisfied the insurance motion suffered any defect, where the table within the motion omitted the word 'improvements' from the term 'improvements and fixtures', particularly where that term was outlined in insurance documents provided in the meeting materials. 2. I am not satisfied the applicant has standing to raise the arguments they have advanced against a motion that approved another lot owner's solar panel installation.

• [7] The scheme is a building format plan (BFP) subdivision, comprised of 88 lots and common property across 6 two-story buildings in Nudgee, Brisbane.
• [8] The community management statement shows the Accommodation Module applies.

• [9] The body corporate called an annual general meeting to be held on 10 March 2025 (AGM). The notice of the meeting states the location as at the barbeque area at the scheme.
• [10] In the days immediately before the scheduled meeting, the scheme was impacted by Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
• [11] On the scheduled day of the meeting, the body corporate sent an email to owners advising that the meeting would be conducted by videoconference only. The applicant takes issue with the meeting being held in this way.

• [12] The applicant seeks the following final orders:

...for the Circa Metro Body Corporate Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on Monday 10th March 2025 to be ruled Out of Order, and all motions passed at the AGM to be made invalid... > > ...At a future date and time the AGM be reconvened and held in an environment in which all body corporate members can attend in person, and not undertaken again electronically as has occurred on this occasion.

• [13] The applicant sought interim orders that the body corporate not act on certain motions that purported to pass at the AGM. To be successful in an interim application, an adjudicator needs to be satisfied that there was a prima facie case for the final orders sought, and if so, that the balance of convince favours the interim relief.
• [14] I did not make the interim orders sought for several reasons.
• [15] At the time, my preliminary view was that a prima facie case for the final order to void the meeting in its entirety was not established. There were several factors that shaped this view. One factor was the submission by the body corporate that meetings had been conducted in a similar electronic manner in the past without issue.
• [16] The applicant says the body corporate's submission was incorrect, and it did not hold previous meetings via teleconference.
• [17] This was only one of more factors forming my preliminary view that there was no prima facie case for one of the final orders. The outcome of the interim application would not have changed. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have considered the corrected information in this final decision.

• [18] The applicant says the final orders are justified as:
  1. The meeting was being held outside of the legislated 3 month timeframe.
  2. The body corporate had not passed an ordinary resolution that permitted electronic attendance at general meetings.
  3. The applicant was not able to raise grievances with the meeting via the microphone.
  4. There was limited ability to debate or raise other issues and concerns at the meeting.
  5. Committee members and the body corporate manager have breached the code of conduct.
  6. The motion relevant to insurance was defective as the body corporate omitted the word 'improvements' from the term 'owner improvements and fixtures'.
  7. The motion relevant to a solar panel installation was defective as it included a condition that the body corporate may not insure the solar panels, or may recover any increase in costs to the insurance premium from the lot owner. The motion also caused the applicant confusion regarding the insurance of their own solar panels.
  8. The motion relevant to the engagement of a contractor was defective as the scope of works included maintenance of items the body corporate is not responsible for.

• [19] The body corroborate opposes the application and submits that:
  1. The annual general meeting was reasonably conducted, in circumstances where the original venue had been impacted by Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
  2. No owner was materially disadvantaged by the format of the meeting, and those present were able to make comment either verbally or via the live chat function.
  3. The motion relevant to insurance was not amending insurance arrangements, and the omission of the word 'improvements' was due to formatting limitations.
  4. The body corporate and its committee are not authorised to provide owners with specific insurance advice, and it is open to the applicant to contact the insurer for clarification.
  5. The body corporate does not dispute that the scope of works for external painting included some lot entry doors which the body corporate is not responsible for. However, says that an order is not necessary as the committee is taking steps to correct the issue.

• [20] Submissions were also received from five lot owners, some being committee members. All opposed the application for largely the same reasons as the body corporate. Notably, one lot owner recounted that people were invited to speak, owners who had voted prior were invited to change their votes, and found the meeting to be 'fair, open and transparent'.

• [21] The applicant states their motivation for bringing this application is due to their expectation that all bodies corporate must comply with the legislation. As I will explain further below, there appears to have been some transgressions from the legislation in relation to the AGM.
• [22] However, technical deviations from the legislation will not always mean an order voiding a meeting or decision is justified. Even where I find there a contravention of the legislation, I must consider whether it is just and equitable to make the sought orders,[1] which is a distinct and separate consideration.
• [23] Ultimately, a defective decision should not be upheld, unless exceptional circumstances exist.[2] Exceptional circumstances may be where the irregularity:
  1. Was trivial or frivolous, with no material or substantial impact on the substance or form of the motion or resolution.
  2. Caused no prejudice, disadvantage or disbenefit to the parties, or any relevant third party.[4]
• [24] I will draw on the above principles when considering the arguments raised by the applicant.

• [25] Pursuant to section 73 of the Accommodation Module, an annual general meeting must be called and held within 3 months of the end of the scheme's financial year. It is not disputed that the body corporate's financial year end is 30 November. This means that the scheme's annual general meeting should be held before 28 February of each year.
• [26] The body corporate does not dispute that the meeting was held outside of the legislative timeframe by 10 days. However, submits that this delay should not invalidate the entirety of the meeting.
• [27] The body corporate has provided reasons for the day. It is submitted that some motions, submitted by another owner in the scheme, contained sensitive material. Discussions were taking place with that particular lot owner to resolve those concerns with the motions. The matter was ultimately resolved. However, as the legislation provides owners must have at least 21 days' notice of the general meeting,[5] the meeting could not be held by 28 February.
• [28] Generally speaking, a committee will meet to set the budget and agenda for the upcoming annual general meeting. While not referred to in legislation, this is commonly called a 'budget committee meeting'. The applicant submits that the committee did not 'adhere to standard body corporate procedures' where the committee usually has a budget committee meeting in November. However, the applicant says the budget committee meeting was not held until 13 January, and argues if the committee had held same in November, there would be no delay. The applicant then goes on to acknowledge that the annual general meeting could have still been held in time with the committee meeting in January. This argument is misconceived and unmoving, and seems to have been made only for argument's sake.
• [29] The applicant also argues that if the meeting was held before the end of February, the meeting would have not been interrupted by the impacts of a tropical cyclone and moved to an online only format. This is a long bow to draw that pushes the bounds of rational argument.
• [30] Adjudicators have previously noted that the legislation does not provide that an annual general meeting will be invalid simply because it is late.[6] Where it has not been demonstrated that owners suffered substantive prejudice as a result, there is no basis to find it void.
• [31] In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the final orders are justified because the meeting was held outside of the legislative timeframe. The delay of 10 days is, in my view, trivial, and there appears to be no prejudice or disadvantage suffered by lot owners. The bigger disadvantage would be for the body corporate to fail to hold an annual general meeting at all.

• [32] In my interim decision, I mentioned that there can be question as to whether a meeting conducted entirely online faces issue where the legislation usually requires a general meeting be held within 15km of scheme land. However, I noted that, on my preliminary view, I am likely to agree with the comments in Glenhaven Estate[7] where the Adjudicator did not see this requirement is contravened if a general meeting is held purely electronically. The applicant has not advanced any arguments on this point.
• [33] Nevertheless, the ability for owners to be present and vote at general meetings electronically is contemplated in the legislation:
  1. Section 106 of the Accommodation Module provides that the body corporate may decide by ordinary resolution that votes may be cast by electronic means, where the system for receiving electronic votes meets certain criteria. There are also similar provisions for secret ballots and committee elections.[8]
  2. Section 89(2) of the Accommodation Module provides that a body corporate may decide by ordinary resolution that a voter is present personally at the meeting if the voter can cast a vote at the meeting by electronic means. Teleconferences and video conferences are listed as examples.
• [34] The body corporate provided evidence in its interim submissions that an ordinary resolution permitting electronic voting had previously passed by ordinary resolution.
• [35] However, in relation to electronic attendance at meetings, the body corporate concedes that no relevant ordinary resolution was passed. It seems the body corporate did not realise there is a difference between voting electronically, and electronic attendance. The body corporate now acknowledges the distinction and submits that it will propose a motion regarding electronic attendance at the next general meeting.
• [36] Therefore, it is true to say that the meeting was conducted without a motion being passed pursuant to section 89(2). This can cause issues with meeting quorum and validity of votes. Further, there may be issue where owners were not able to attend and interact with the meeting in person.
• [37] Nevertheless, as indicated above, this does not necessarily mean that an order invalidating the entirety of the meeting is justified.
• [38] The applicant says disadvantage was suffered in the following ways:
  1. The applicant suffered technical issues which prevented their microphone function from working.
  2. The applicant was not verbally able to raise their concerns with particular motions. The applicant says those discussions may have changed the voting outcome.
  3. The applicant was not able to verbally raise and discuss several other issues, not directly related to motions on the agenda. Those issues ranged from questions as to why particular line items in the budget were not spent, to developing a 'local committee code of conduct', parking and speeding disputes, why a past by-law enforcement request was not actioned, allegations of unsatisfactory performance by contractors, and the like.
• [39] I am not satisfied the applicant or other owners suffered significant disadvantage due to the committee's decision to hold the meeting via videoconference, for several reasons.
• [40] The original location of the meeting was impacted by Tropical Cycle Alfred. The body corporate submitted photos depicting fallen trees and debris over pathways in the recreational area. The body corporate says the decision was made to hold the meeting via teleconference for the safety of lot owners, and so necessary governance of the scheme can continue.
• [41] I note that there were more voters present at the meeting via teleconference, than voters being present in person at the previous annual general meeting.
• [42] I also note that whilst the applicant faced technical difficulties regarding their microphone, the materials in front of me suggest other owners did not have the same experience.
• [43] The applicant was able to write any comments, queries or concerns into the live meeting chat, and did so to some extent, which were acknowledged to some extent. Yet, the applicant remains aggrieved that they were unable to express and raise debate verbally and to the extent they wished.
• [44] The legislation does not expressly provide the applicant with such a right. Much of the legislation is devoted to meeting and voting procedures. Yet, the concept of discussion or debate is not discussed.
• [45] It is not immediately clear whether the legislation intends to add to long-standing conventions of meeting procedures, or intends to dispose and replace as the sole source of authority.
• [46] Some adjudicators have held the view that the general principles of meeting procedure imply that debate should be allowed, to some extent.
• [47] Adjudicator Rosemann in Shafston University Mansions[9] quoted the following from 'Joske's Law and Procedural at Meetings in Australia':[10]

The purpose of debate is to allow members to state relevant facts and express their views on the business before the meeting. This is an essential part of the democratic process by which organisations reach decisions. Members should be allowed to share their information and to attempt to persuade their fellows of the rightness of their views.

• [48] One of the secondary objectives in the Act is 'to balance the rights of individuals with the responsibility for self management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes'.[11] Remembering that a body corporate draws its being and powers from the Act, it is not so far-fetched to suggest that allowing discussion or debate at a general meeting is not inconsistent with those legislative objectives.
• [49] Of course, even if I was to find such a right is implied, balance is key.
• [50] Adjudicator Rosemann went on to say:

[133] The need to allow debate does not mean a chair cannot control the conduct of debate, and indeed they should. A chair should give each voter present an opportunity to speak if they wish, ensure others do not interrupt, require speakers to keep to the point, and so on.

• [51] Several orders have suggested some examples of acceptable control or curbing of debate. Those examples include passing a procedural motion remove a person who has been significantly disruptive,[12] invoking time limits on speakers,[13] requiring speakers to keep to the issue at hand,[14] or curtailing opinions on one side of the debate where multiple have been expressed and inviting views from an opposing side.[15]
• [52] I also note that the processes for voting at a general meeting is slightly different to processes of other legal entities contemplated in Joske. In a body corporate setting, motions are circulated 21 days prior, and owners are entitled to cast votes prior to the meeting either via written voting paper or electronic vote. In a modern body corporate setting, it is not unusual for the majority of votes to be cast prior to the meeting without owners present at the meeting itself. In those circumstances the reality is that debate, no matter how poignant, may not have any practical impact on the outcome.
• [53] At best, it could be said that a general meeting should allow for some discussion or debate ahead of voting, which can be reasonably restricted. I find that even if the meeting was held in person, the applicant did not have an unbridled right to address the meeting in any manner and to any extent their heart desired, as they contend. I am not satisfied they have suffered any material detriment. The applicant was able to make comment via the live meeting chat, and did so on occasion.
• [54] There is also no evidence in front of me to suggest that the points the applicant wished to raise would have had an impact on the outcome of the vote, and I question the relevancy of a majority of the points.
• [55] For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not suggesting that a body corporate may dispense with holding a meeting in person at any and all times. There are exceptional circumstances with genuine safety concerns regarding the original venue, and owners did not suffer material disadvantage where they were able to participate and generate some level of discussion regarding motions.

• [56] As part of the final orders sought, the applicant wishes for me to find all motions invalid. While I have not been satisfied the meeting itself is invalid, as the applicant has also sought for all passed motions to be found invalid, I will consider any arguments the applicant has raised against specific motions.

• [57] The applicant takes issue with Motion 7 which considered insurance. In my interim decision I explained following, which continues to apply to this matter:

[31] I appreciate why the applicant may be under the impression that Motion 7 proposes to change arrangements, as motions usually propose some kind of change or action. However, that does not appear to be the case here, based on the material currently in front of me. The body corporate has an obligation to obtain building insurance[16] (which includes improvements).[17] Despite any usual relevant limit for committee spending,[18] the committee may put in place a relevant policy of insurance without the need for an ordinary resolution,[19] so the insurance may not necessarily be renewed at a general meeting. However, the legislation provides that details of the relevant policy of insurance that is in force should be disclosed in the annual general meeting notice.[20] Further, the agenda for an annual general meeting should include the substance of any statutory motions to be considered at the meeting.[21] Statutory motions can include reviewing insurance policies.[22] The certificate of currency indicates the current policy has been in place since 31 December 2024. Motion 7 appears to simply be disclosing and reviewing the policy that is currently in place, and the wording does not appear to be amending that policy.

• [58] The applicant continues to take issue with Motion 7, arguing that body corporate has not disclosed the details about the policy as required under section 186 of the Accommodation Module. The motion includes a table summary that states 'fixtures' and the associated amount of coverage. The applicant argues that this table should read 'improvements and fixtures'. The body corporate submits the wording was shorted to fit in the table.
• [59] The applicant's argument is not justified. The omission of the word 'improvements' in the table is of little consequence. The meeting materials included the certificate of currency that also outlined the sums insured, and used the words Lot Owners' Fixtures and Improvements'. I am not satisfied Motion 7 is invalid.

• [60] The applicant's argument regarding the disclosure of the insurance coverage for improvements has extended into Motion 12. Motion 12 proposed to give approval to another owner to install solar panels as an improvement to common property.
• [61] The applicant does not appear to have issue with the solar panels being approved. Rather, the applicant takes issue with some terms and conditions outlined in the motion that state the body corporate may not insure the solar panels or may recover any increase in costs to the insurance premium from the lot owner. The applicant is under the impression the body corporate should be insuring the solar panels and these terms are inappropriate.
• [62] I am not satisfied the applicant has standing to dispute the motion on this basis. For the applicant to have standing, the connection to the dispute must be material and not merely intellectual or emotional.[23] The applicant's rights, duties or legal interests are not impacted by the terms.[24] There is clearly another party, the other lot owner, who has a stronger connection.[25] Ultimately, the applicant has no skin in the game regarding this concern.
• [63] The applicant submits that Motion 12 has caused them to become confused around the insurance of the applicant's own solar panels. I am unsure if this argument is aimed to void Motion 12, or is another argument around holding the meeting electronically. For the avoidance of any doubt, I confirm this argument does not void Motion 12. Nor does it show me that the applicant suffered disadvantage by not being able to verbally raise this concern at the meeting. The committee have correctly submitted that the committee does not have authority to provide the applicant with insurance advice. It is open to the applicant to raise this query with the insurer or broker who is appropriately licenced to give that advice. The applicant may also like to pay mind to section 191(2)(b) of the Accommodation Module.

• [64] The applicant takes issue with Motion 10.1. Motion 10.1 was part of a larger group of motions that proposed alternative ways of dealing with the same issue, known as a 'group of same issue motion', where only 1 of the proposed motions may pass.[26]
• [65] The motion proposed the engagement of a contractor to paint the external surfaces of the scheme.
• [66] The issue is that the scope of works included painting of lots' front doors. In a BFP, maintaining the entry doors are the body corporate's responsibility if they sit within a boundary wall.[27] However, the survey plans show that for many lots, there are porches that form part of the lot boundary, that then lead to the lot entry doors. The result is that those doors are wholly within the lot and not within a boundary wall.
• [67] It is not disputed that many lot entry doors do not sit within a boundary wall and therefore the body corporate is not responsible for the painting of those doors. It is not disputed that the scope of works includes painting the lot doors at the body corporate's expense.
• [68] I would also like to alert the body corporate to the fact that many of the balconies, patios, courtyards and garages form part of lots according to the survey plans. It is possible that there may be more surfaces forming part of the original scope of works that are not within the body corporate's maintenance responsibilities, as the outer face of external walls within those areas are not common property. The application includes an email form an employee of the body corporate manager acknowledging this as the case, but advised that the quotes would remain as the body corporate's expense to 'avoid unnecessary complexity'.[28] While I understand the reason, compliance with the legislation regarding maintenance responsibilities is a necessary complexity. A more in-depth discussion on this topic can be found at paragraphs [50]-[62] of Uni Lodge Rockhampton [ 2023] QBCCMCmr 107. There are of course situations where maintenance works inside of a lot can be the body corporate's responsibility under the legislation, and the body corporate should consider those situations as well. It is always open for the body corporate to obtain legal advice.
• [69] Nevertheless, the applicant acknowledges that the body corporate may undertake painting works for areas it is not responsible for, however, argues the body corporate should have an agreement with each owner for the supply of the painting service and recover the cost from the lot owner pursuant to section 200 of the Accommodation Module. No such agreements existed at the time of the meeting.
• [70] There is an argument that the body corporate could validly pass such a motion despite not having such agreements with lot owners. Section 202 of the Accommodation Module provides that the body corporate may undertake maintenance works that a lot owner has an obligation to carry out but has failed to do so. Further, that the body corporate may recover the reasonable cost of carrying out the work from the owner of the lot as a debt, without agreement. This means it can be possible for the body corporate to resolve to undertake the work, with the intention of recovering same from the lot owner. However, this approach carries a higher risk that the body corporate may not successfully recover the amount, or may incur further expense in attempting to recover the amounts.
• [71] In any event, there are no materials in front of me that suggest the body corporate intended to recover any costs from lot owners pursuant to section 202. Without such intention, I would agree that the resolution to pass the motion is void.
• [72] The body corporate says that the final order invaliding the motion is not justified as the body corporate does intend to propose a more appropriate motion with suitable scope of works at a future meeting. While that is a commendable course of action by the committee, ultimately the motion still stands and has not been rescinded. It cannot be guaranteed that any motion to rescind the previous will pass, and the legislation also provides that the committee must put into effect the lawful decisions of the body corporate.[29] In the circumstances I am satisfied an order declaring the resolution as void is justified.

• [73] The applicant dedicates a significant amount of their submissions to arguments and disputes not directly relevant to the final orders sought. This application is made against the body corporate, and only calls for me to consider whether the meeting and motions were valid. It is not an opportunity to have other allegations and grievances, particularly against persons who are not named respondents, aired and determined.

• [74] The applicant has submitted that their intent is to ensure the committee complies with the legislation. As I have explained in this order, a technical deviation from the legislation does not automatically mean that an order of an adjudicator is justified. An adjudicator must make orders that are just and equitable in the circumstances,[30] and technical deviations that have not caused significant detriment may still stand.
• [75] The onus is on the applicant. I have not been satisfied that an order to void the meeting and its motions, and require a new meeting to be called, is justified.
• [76] The applicant has not satisfied me that there was significant detriment in the meeting being held 10 days late in the circumstances, nor where the meeting was held via videoconference due to the impacts of a tropical cyclone.
• [77] The applicant had the ability to interact with the meeting, just not in the manner the applicant would have preferred. The legislation does not provide an owner with an uninhibited right to address a meeting, nor to dictate how they will address a general meeting and to what extent.
• [78] I am also not satisfied there was any defect in the insurance motion, nor that the applicant has standing to raise the type of argument pursued against the terms of another lot owner's improvement.
• [79] I have however been satisfied that an order to void the resolution regarding painting the exterior surfaces of the buildings is justified. The body corporate acknowledges the scope included the painting of lot entry doors, many of which do not form part of the body corporate's maintenance responsibilities. I am satisfied an order is justified as, while the body corporate submits it is working to rectify the situation, ultimately the motion still stands and any future decision to rectify the issue is not guaranteed.

[1] Act, s 276; Broadbeach Lodge [2024] QBCCMCmr 469 at [38].

[2]3 Finger v Dickie [2015] QCATA 113 at [10].

[4] Finger v Dickie [2015] QCATA 113 at [10] citing Carroll & Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21.

[6] Ciana [2021] QBCCMCmr 72 at [7].

[7] Glenhaven Estate [2024] QBCCMCmr 177 at [23].

[8] Accommodation Module ss 24, 29, 111.

[9] Shafston University Mansions [2013] QBCCMCmr 344 at [132].

[10] Magner ES (Ed.) Joske's Law and Procedural at Meetings in Australia (10th Ed), Lawbook Co 2007, para 7.05

[12] Shafston University Mansions [2013] QBCCMCmr 344 at [134].

[13] Shafston University Mansions [2013] QBCCMCmr 344 at [135],

Points North [2013] QBCCMCmr 486 at [100], although, it was suggested this may need a procedural motion in Pacific Mansions [2012] QBCCMCmr 167 at [46].

[14] Pacific Mansions [2012] QBCCMCmr 167 at [45].

[15] Riverleigh Gardens - [2015] QBCCMCmr 418at [30].

[18] Accommodation Module, s 162; Schedule 1, Dictionary.

[19] Accommodation Module, s 162(1)(e).

[22] Accommodation Module, Sch 1, Dictionary.

[23] Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth [1980] HCA 53 at [20], cited in Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297.

[24] Unions NSW v New South Wales [2023] HCA 4 at [25], cited in Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297.

[25] Right to Life Assn (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health [1995] FCA 1060; (1995) 128 ALR 238 at 253, cited in Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297.

[27] Accommodation Module, s 170(2)(a)(ii).

[28] Email to applicant dated 12 February 2025.