Cirrus [2025] QBCCMCmr 320 (19 September 2025)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - where the applicants do not agree with the way the committee is proposing to carry out certain works to their lot - whether the interim orders sought by the applicants are warranted in the circumstances.

Act, ss 94, 100, 286, 287

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] Cirrus CTS 9831 is a 24-lot scheme situated in Kings Beach, Queensland. It is governed by the Standard Module. The applicants, Julie Clarke and Anthony Aitchison, are the joint owners of Lot 16 in the scheme.
• [2] I understand certain windows in Lot 16 are leaking and the water ingress has damaged an internal wall in the lot. The applicants made an application to this office to have the body corporate replace the defective windows and repair the internal wall which had been damaged.[1]
• [3] On 16 July 2025, adjudicator Stone made the following order:[2]

Within three months the body corporate for Cirrus must replace the defective balcony windows and replaster the internal hub wall within lot 16.

• [4] I understand the body corporate committee has since taken steps to obtain quotes for replacing the balcony windows and replastering the internal hub wall and it intends to hold a vote to decide which quote to move forward with.
• [5] The applicants do not agree with the way the body corporate is proposing to carry out the ordered works. They say the quotes the committee has obtained for replacing the windows are based on assumed wind classifications. In addition, they say the quotes are for windows with much bulkier frames than the current windows and this is in breach of the scheme's by-laws. In relation to the hub wall repairs, the applicants say the quotes obtained by the committee propose to patch over the damage to the wall instead of re-plastering it.
• [6] The applicants seek the following final orders:
  1. The body corporate obtain a structural engineers wind classification report and form 15 compliance certificate before seeking or finalizing any replacement quotes for balcony windows to Lot 16.
  2. The body corporate obtain at least one quote for compliant custom fabricated windows that match the existing materials and style as closely as possible in compliance with By­ law 30.5 and the National construction code or accept Quote #4 from Euro Glass, that being the quote currently "as close as possible" under By-Law 30.5.
  3. The body corporate obtain and implement a quote that removes the water damaged plaster wall and fully re-plasters the internal hub wall (not patching).
  4. The body corporate is restrained from approving or proceeding with works that do not comply with the adjudicator's order.
  5. Any further orders the Adjudicator considers appropriate, including costs.
• [7] The applicants say that if the committee proceeds with accepting one of the non-compliant quotes for replacing the balcony windows before the final determination of their application it will render any future determination ineffective and difficult to enforce. Accordingly, the applicants seek the following interim orders:

1. The committee not proceed with the acceptance of any quote for the replacement of the balcony windows to lot 16.

2. No works relating to the replacement of the balcony windows commence until the adjudicator has issued a determination regarding compliance with By-Law 30.5 and NCC.

• [8] The applicants say that due to the imminent nature of the committee vote on accepting the quotes, the interim orders they have requested are necessary to prevent irreversible or non-compliant actions.[3]
• [9] This is my consideration of the applicants' request for interim orders. The applicants bear the onus to establish that the interim orders they seek are warranted in the circumstances.

• [10] The applicants lodged this application for adjudication on 4 September 2025. The commissioner sought clarification on some aspects of the application and the application was amended.
• [11] The commissioner referred the interim order request to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [12] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comments from a respondent or affected parties before an interim order is decided. However, in the circumstances of this case, interim submissions were invited from the body corporate committee and it made interim submissions in response.
• [13] I have reviewed and considered all the submissions and materials submitted on this dispute before coming to my decision on the request for interim orders.

• [14] An adjudicator may make interim orders if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the orders sought are necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[4]
• [15] In deciding whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interim injunction applications.[5] Accordingly, to determine if it is just and equitable to make the interim orders sought by the applicants, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute, the nature and urgency of the matter, as well as the balance of convenience between the parties. I will explain each consideration in more detail below.
• [16] Firstly, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute and be satisfied there is a serious legal question to be answered. At this stage, the applicants do not need to satisfy me that, on the balance of probabilities, their legal position is the correct one to take in the case. However, I must be satisfied the applicants' case has a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the making of the interim orders sought prior to a full investigation into the matter being concluded.
• [17] Secondly, an adjudicator may make interim orders only if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[6] The applicants must therefore establish that the circumstances warrant the interim orders they have sought. This may be where, for example, the orders are necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm from taking place or to stop something that cannot be undone. I must also balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused, against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted.

• [18] As a preliminary point, I want to address the applicants' assertion that the committee's actions to date do not comply with the order made by adjudicator Stone. It is not my role as an adjudicator to determine whether a previous adjudicator's order has been complied with or to enforce compliance with a previous order. Enforcement of an order is a matter for the Magistrates Court.[7] Accordingly, my consideration in this matter will be confined to determining the new dispute about whether the committee may have contravened, or is anticipated to contravene, the Act or the scheme's community management statement (CMS) in making decisions about how to carry out the ordered works.[8]

• [19] The applicants say the committee have pursued quotes for the ordered works that: (1) are based on assumed wind classifications for the replacement windows without obtaining a proper engineering report; (2) propose windows with frames that are bulkier than the original windows they are replacing contrary to By-law 30.5 of the scheme's CMS; and (3) propose patching of the hub wall rather than a full re-plastering of the wall. The applicants say the committee is not acting reasonably in the way it is seeking to move forward with the works.
• [20] I note that section 94(2) of the Act sets out that the body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions, including when making, or not making, a decision.[9] A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate,[10] and a committee acting on behalf of a body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision.[11]
• [21] I must therefore consider whether the committee has acted reasonably in relation to the quotes it has obtained for the ordered works. I will deal with each of the issues raised by the applicants in turn.

• [22] The applicants say Lot 16 faces directly onto the ocean and is exposed to strong coastal winds. They say all three of the quotes obtained by the committee rely on assumed wind classifications for the glass and no structural engineers report or form 15 compliance certificate has been obtained. The applicants say this is in breach of the national construction code and the Building Act 1975 (Qld). They say proceeding without the required certification raises safety concerns and may lead to a loss of insurance cover.
• [23] The committee says that in August 2025, it sought an engineering report from Engineering and Building Investigation Services (EBIS) regarding the wind classification for window design for replacing Lot 16's balcony windows. It says the report from EBIS was received on 3 September 2025 and it has been regular communication with EBIS to confirm the correct wind ratings for the replacement windows.
• [24] I understand the committee obtained quotes from three window installers, namely: Nyblad, Elite Glass and Coast2Coast. The committee says it initially resolved to engage Elite Glass to replace the windows however, shortly after passing the resolution, Elite Glass indicated it was unable to undertake the works until April 2026. The committee says that given the timeframe to complete the ordered works, it decided to rescind the resolution and discount the quote from Elite Glass.
• [25] The committee says it subsequently worked with Nybald and Coast2Coast to ensure that their window designs met the required wind ratings as provided by EBIS. The committee says the most recent version of the window design from Coast2Coast's window fabricator confirms the wind pressure ratings are in-line with the EBIS requirements. The committee says it has been informed that the body corporate will receive the completed form 15 at the completion of the works.
• [26] I have carefully reviewed all the materials before me in relation to the wind ratings. It seems the committee did seek input from an engineering firm and has not proceeded on assumed wind classifications as alleged by the applicants. My preliminary view is that the committee appears to have taken steps to confirm the correct wind ratings for the replacement windows. I have not yet been persuaded the committee has acted unreasonably in this regard.

• [27] The applicants say the scheme's by-laws require that any replacement windows must match existing materials and style as closely as possible. They say all three quotes obtained by the committee propose frames that are at least 100% bulkier than the originals. They say this will significantly impact the views from Lot 16 and reduce the amenity of the lot. The applicants say custom fabricated windows with slimmer frames are available but the committee have ignored their requests to get quotes for the same. They say this is unreasonable.
• [28] The committee concedes that, in order to cope with any potential water ingress, the proposed depth of the new windows will be wider than the current frames. However, it says this only relates to the subsill frame and the wider depth of the windows will have no impact on the view out the window.
• [29] The committee says a comparison table of the different window dimensions was sent to the applicants on 3 September 2025. It says this table indicates that the Nybald design would see thicker frames, but the Coast2Coast design would be more slimline with only the increased depth of the window frame. The committee says that where the Coast2Coast design meets both the wind rating and the aesthetics of the scheme, it prefers that quote.
• [30] The current CMS for Cirrus sets out specific by-laws for windows at the scheme.[12] By-law 30.5 provides that "all replacements must match exiting materials, as close as possible, and keep with the existing style of the building". Having considered the wording of By-law 30.5, my preliminary view is that the intention of the by-law is to maintain the aesthetics of the building. That is, it is intended to keep the existing 'look' of the building when viewed from the outside.
• [31] I understand there is no dispute about the materials being used for the replacement windows and accordingly, the key question is whether the proposed new windows keep with the "existing style of the building". From the materials before me, it appears the overall design of the replacement windows are the same as the current ones. That is, they appear to have the same number of windows and framing components as the original windows. It is only the thickness of the framing components that is at issue.
• [32] I note the applicants do not agree with the comparison table of the framing components compiled by the committee. I have carefully reviewed the quotes provided by Nybald and Coast2Coast and it is difficult, based on the materials currently before me, to ascertain the exact measurements of the framing components. Accordingly, the applicants have not yet persuaded me that the proposed frames are going to be significantly bulkier.
• [33] However, even if I accepted the applicants' submissions about the measurements, the difference between the current frames and the proposed frames would be a matter of 50 to maybe 100 millimetres. And, I am not yet persuaded that this difference would be noticeable enough from the outside of the building to conclude that the designs are not "keeping with the existing style of the building". I am not yet persuaded the slight increase in frame size would breach By-law 30.5.
• [34] Taking all of the above into account, I have not yet been persuaded the committee has either acted unreasonably or contrary to the scheme's by-laws in making the decision to proceed with seeking to implement one of the quotes it has obtained for replacing the balcony windows in Lot 16.

• [35] The applicants say the body corporate has been ordered to replaster the hub wall but the quotes obtained by the committee involve installing plasterboard over the damaged plaster wall or 'patching' the wall. They say neither of these options comply with the adjudicator's order.
• [36] The committee says it was always intending to have the internal hub wall replastered as required by the order. It says this is the scope of works it had requested from contractors and any indication in the wording of the quotes was not meant to indicate otherwise.
• [37] The committee says it has since obtained an updated quote from the contractor Impact Linings to clarify the works to be carried out. I have reviewed this quote dated 14 September 2025 which quotes for the following repairs:

NOTE: NO ACCESS TO UNIT AT TIME OF SITE INSPECTION Supply labour and materials to replaster the wall under the window and patch the two anchor points in ceiling; sand ready for painting...

• [38] Based on the materials currently before me, it appears the committee has now clarified with the contractor that it wants the internal wall to be replastered. Accordingly, I am not yet satisfied the committee has acted unreasonably, or otherwise contrary to the legislation, in relation to how it is proposing to carry out the works to the hub wall.

• [39] For the reasons provided above, I am not satisfied that the interim orders sought by the applicants are warranted in the circumstances.
• [40] For completeness, I note it appears the applicants may be wanting to pursue an alternative option for replacing the balcony windows in Lot 16. If the timeline for carrying out the repairs to the windows set out in the order made by adjudicator Stone is impeding their ability to canvass alternative options with the body corporate, it is open to the applicants to make an application to this office to seek an extension of time for the body corporate to comply with the orders made by adjudicator Stone.
• [41] The dispute will now be referred back to the commissioner to progress under the Act.[13]

[1] Application 0325-2025 lodged on 7 April 2025.

[2] Cirrus [2025] QBCCMCmr 249

[3] I understand the committee vote was initially scheduled to take place on 22 September 2025 but may have been brought forward to 18 September 2025.

[4] Section 279(1) of the Act

[5] For general principles see: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[6] Section 279(1) of the Act

[7] See section 286 and 287 of the Act

[8] See section 276(1)(a) of the Act

[9] Section 94(2) of the Act

[10] Section 100(1) of the Act

[11] Section 100(5) of the Act

[12] CMS executed on 29 May 2025 (dealing number: 724103060).

[13] Section 279(4) of the Act