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

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURE - whether the body corporate can hold an extraordinary general meeting without 21 days' notice.

Act, s 243A; Standard Module, s 91

• [1] This application is about calling an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to consider a motion for urgent works.
• [2] The applicant says that in July 2025 there was a landslide within the scheme land, which is a large property on an escarpment, with steep slopes, undulating topography, and dense vegetation. On 13 August 2025 the body corporate was given notice by the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation of an alleged release of contaminants (sediment resulting from the landslide) into the local catchment, and the requirement to address that. The body corporate says it has worked closely with various professionals about rectification steps and liaised with various authorities and its insurer about the matter.
• [3] The body corporate says the anticipated remediation is likely to require significant earthworks, forming surface drainage paths, flattening slopes, and revegetation. It says stage 1 of the works are to secure the site and ensure no further impact to the waterway and private property. It has obtained a single quote for $80,415 (plus GST) for the stage 1 works.
• [4] The body corporate seeks authority to reduce the notice period to 7 days for an EGM to consider a motion to engage a contractor to undertake the stage 1 works. It says it has professional advice these works are required as soon as possible to mitigate the risk of further damage, particularly as storm season approaches.
• [5] The question then is whether an order is warranted.

• [6] Clearview Estate community titles scheme 25621 is an 11-lot scheme in Montville. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. It is registered as survey plans 171040.
• [7] The application seeks "An order to authorise the body corporate to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting with 7 days' notice to approve emergency landslide mitigation works."
• [8] I am satisfied this matter falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] 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.[2]

• [9] By a notice issued on 24 September 2025 and decided on 2 October, the committee resolved to apply for a shortened notice period for an urgent EGM.
• [10] This application was then lodged over a month later, on 3 November.
• [11] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[3] The application was subsequently amended.[4]
• [12] The application was then referred to me pursuant to section 234A of the Act on the basis that it potentially related to 'emergency circumstances'. As provided for under that section, the application was referred notwithstanding that notice of it had not been given to affected parties.
• [13] At my request, a member of the Commissioner's office contacted the body corporate manager to seek further clarification of some matters.[5]

• [14] Section 91 of the Standard Module requires a general meeting to be held at least 21 days after notice of the meeting is given to all owners. In calculating the notice period, section 38(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 says the day of giving the notice and the day of the meeting are excluded. So, there must be 21 clear days from the giving of the notice to the meeting.
• [15] The courts have recognised that the detailed nature of the body corporate regulations make it almost inevitable that there will be non-compliance from time to time. It has been said that the statutory obligation on a body corporate to act reasonably does not mean every minor irregularity should be used to impede the normal conduct of business, and that 'administrative perfection' is not required. Furthermore, meetings and meeting decisions are to be preserved despite minor errors or procedural irregularities, unless it can be shown that the body corporate acted unreasonably or that voters were disadvantaged.[6] So a meeting may not be invalid simply because insufficient notice was given.
• [16] But an adjudicator has no general statutory power to authorise non-compliance with the legislation. Accordingly, an adjudicator could not authorise a body corporate to call a general meeting that did not comply with the regulations governing the conduct of meetings.
• [17] The Supreme Court has specifically commented on the order of an adjudicator which purported to authorise a body corporate to convene an EGM notwithstanding the notice period requirements.[7] Questions were raised about whether the particular dispute amounted to emergency circumstances for the purposes of section 243A of the Act, although the Court was not persuaded that it was inappropriate for the Commissioner to proceed with the application.[8]
• [18] But more substantively, the Supreme Court was not persuaded that the application fell within section 227(2) of the Act for the purposes of the order to dispense with the notice requirements in the regulations.[9] Chief Justice Bowskill said, "There is no power otherwise conferred by the Act or Regulation to dispense with, or truncate, the period of notice required for a meeting. And the description of the orders able to be made by an adjudicator - as broad as they undoubtedly are - do not include dispensing with, or truncating, the period of notice."[10] Her Honour said she did not consider the adjudicator had power to make an order which had the effect of waiving compliance with the notice requirement.[11]
• [19] Because procedural non-compliance will not automatically invalidate a meeting, from time-to-time adjudicators have previously made a declaration to the effect that a particular meeting will not be invalid because less than the required amount of notice was given (albeit usually dismissing requests for authority to shorten the notice period). But given the comments of the Chief Justice, it is questionable whether even an order of that nature is open to an adjudicator.
• [20] In any event, the applicant has not satisfied me of 'emergency circumstances' that would empower an adjudicator to intervene here. On the submitted material it certainly appears the body corporate should pursue rectification work as soon as possible, and I note the constraints of the forthcoming Christmas period and the storm season. But necessity and urgency does not necessarily amount to an emergency. And the application does not indicate any deadline or particular consequences of a further 2-week delay (being the difference between 7 days' notice and 21 days' notice) given all that has occurred to date.
• [21] I acknowledge the difficult circumstances that the body corporate currently faces. But I am not satisfied the circumstances warrant the intervention of an adjudicator's order even if there was an order that an adjudicator could make.
• [22] I have dismissed the application.
• [23] I will make a further observation. In the Supreme Court matter noted above, Chief Justice Bowskill noted that a procedural irregularity was capable of being cured by subsequent ratification.[12] In that case, her Honour was referring to the authority to commence legal proceedings. But arguably it could extend to engaging a contractor. I do not purport to give advice or make any recommendations to the body corporate about how to proceed, particularly given the limited information provided to me at this stage. But if it was confident that all or most owners supported the engagement of the contractor for the quoted works, and if the proposed motion was otherwise valid, and if it was otherwise acting reasonably in the circumstances, potentially the committee could consider resolving to engage the contractor itself and then seek ratification of that decision at a general meeting convened in compliance with the requisite notice. I note the case law regarding effective ratification.[13]

[1] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[6] See Carroll and Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21 and Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 (QDC, unreported, Bolton J, 4080-2000, 29 May 2001)

[7] Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach CTS 24163 v 21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 68 regarding Oceana on Broadbeach [2025] QBCCMCmr 109

[8] Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach CTS 24163 v 21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 66 at paras 35-37

[9] That dispute concerned section 81 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020, which is in the same terms as section 91 of the Standard Module

[10] Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach CTS 24163 v 21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 66 at para 39

[12] Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach CTS 24163 v 21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 66 at para 42

[13] For example, Warren v Body Corporate for Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325 (No 2) [2006] QDC 398, Warren v Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325 [2007] QCA 160, McEvoy & Anor v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road [2013] QCA 168, Body Corporate for Calypso Plaza on Coolangatta CTS 24595 v Larraine Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 004