Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This dispute is about body corporate spending decisions and the raising of levies at the scheme.
• [2] The applicant claims the annual body corporate levies have been increasing at an unsustainable rate - by 22.5% in one quarter and a total of 86% over the past 6 years. She says these increases have led to owners defaulting on their levy payments, resulting in a cycle of mounting debt and debt collection fees. The applicant also asserts that the committee have been approving expenditure above its approved limit.
• [3] Although she has sought body corporate records to understand the basis for the increases and spending, the applicant says the body corporate has failed to comply with the requests, has given only vague responses, and that she remains without a satisfactory explanation. The applicant says interim orders are necessary while final orders are pending to prevent additional spending by the body corporate and to prevent the collection of excessive levies causing financial harm to owners.
• [4] The body corporate says all owners are provided with the agendas for the annual general meeting (AGM) and with the minutes of those meetings. It says the documents are also available via an online portal managed by the body corporate's manager.
• [5] For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied the applicant has raised any serious legal issues that would justify the issuance of an interim order. Accordingly, I have dismissed the application for interim orders.

• [6] The scheme known as Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments CTS 39725 (Clifton Views) is located in Clifton Beach in the Cairns region and consists of 246 lots and common property. The community management statement (CMS) for Clifton Views shows the Accomodation Module applies.
• [7] The applicant is one of the joint owners of Lot 307.
• [8] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Clifton Views.

• [9] An adjudicator has jurisdiction generally to make orders that are just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute between certain parties about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[1] The parties to the dispute are the owner of a lot and the body corporate. This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act.[2] This application concerns disputes about claimed and anticipated contraventions of the Act. I am satisfied it falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and within adjudicator jurisdiction.[3]
• [10] The Commissioner referred the application for interim orders to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act. An adjudicator has the power to make an interim order "if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[4]
• [11] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. In the circumstances, I provided the committee for the body corporate with an opportunity to make a submission about the application.

• [12] The applicant says the body corporate has increased levies by 86% in six years, which amounts to systematic financial mismanagement. She also claims the committee has contravened the legislation by authorising spending that exceeds its statutory limit. The applicant says she has repeatedly requested body corporate records, but the body corporate has failed to comply with its statutory duty to provide those records in the time frame required by the legislation.
• [13] The applicant is ultimately seeking 5 final orders relating to body corporate records and spending by the body corporate. To summarise, she seeks final orders that:
  1. The body corporate provide her with the records she requested on 30 July 2025, which records include "full financial statements and cash flow statements" for the year ending 31 January 2025, agendas and minutes for general meetings between 2023 - 2025, quotes and tenders for all projects since 2022, and records of owner approvals for spending on projects above $49,200.
  2. Approvals for expenditure above $49,200 made by the committee without an ordinary resolution of owners at a general meeting be declared void and of no effect.
  3. The resolution approving the levy increase of 22.5% for September 2025 be declared void and unreasonable having regard to the failure to provide owners with adequate disclosure of project costs, ongoing deficits in the administrative fund, and disproportionate increases in levies from 2019.
  4. That the body corporate has acted unreasonably in financial management.
  5. Any further orders an adjudicator considers appropriate.
• [14] While her application for final orders is pending, the applicant seeks two interim orders, namely that:
  1. The body corporate must not approve or commit to any further expenditure above $49,200 without ordinary resolution of all owners;

2. The body corporate must not issue or enforce any further levy increases beyond the September 2025 level;

• [15] The applicant says these orders are necessary because without them, owners including herself will suffer financial harm from "further excessive and unreasonable levy increases" while the dispute is being resolved. She says the cycle of rising levies and mounting debt collection fees risks harm to individual owners and to the body corporate. In addition, she says the committee has repeatedly approved expenditure in excess of its $49,000 limit and that, without an interim order, additional large projects may be pushed through compounding the financial mismanagement.
• [16] Finally, she says interim orders are necessary to prevent further harm pending final orders because once levies are collected, contracts entered into, and funds spent, the financial harm to owners cannot be undone even if an adjudicator later finds the decisions to be invalid.

• [17] The committee for the body corporate provided a brief comment on the application. I understand it to be opposing the application for interim orders. It says all owners are provided with the agendas for AGMs and with the minutes of those meetings. It says the documents are also available via an online portal managed by the body corporate's manager.
• [18] In response to my investigations, the body corporate manager also provided a copy of the notice, agenda, and supporting materials that were distributed to owners for the body corporate's most recent AGM, which was held in May 2025. The manager also confirmed the materials had been distributed to the applicant as an owner in the scheme.

• [19] The only issue to decide at this time is whether an interim order is warranted.
• [20] Adjudicators are empowered to issue an interim order if satisfied "on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[5] Adjudicators often make interim orders in the form of a temporary injunction (an order not to do something) to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of an application. If satisfied an interim order is necessary, adjudicators may make an interim order that is just and equitable.
• [21] To determine if it is necessary and just and equitable to make an interim order, there must be some reason in law to make an order. For this, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered. At this stage, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their arguments will be ultimately successful.[6] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success on the legal issues presented to warrant making an interim order.
• [22] If I am satisfied there is a serious legal question to be answered, I must also consider the nature of the circumstances, and the practical reasons for and likely effects of an interim order. This is known as assessing the balance of convenience between the parties. To do this, I must consider the inconvenience or harm to the applicant if I do not make an interim order but it is later determined that the body corporate has contravened the Act. I must weigh that against the harm to the body corporate if I make an interim order and the applicant is later unsuccessful in the application for final orders.
• [23] Accordingly, I will proceed to consider whether serious legal issues have been raised with sufficient likelihood of success. If so, I will consider the nature of the circumstances presented and weigh the balance of convenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.

• [24] I understand the applicant to be raising two potential legal issues. Firstly, she appears to be claiming that the committee for the body corporate has been contravening the legislation by approving expenditure in excess of its spending limit. Secondly, she suggests that the body corporate is acting unreasonably with regard to financial management and, as a result, the annual levies are unreasonable and excessive.

• [25] In support of her first claim, the applicant asserts that the spending limit for the committee is $49,200 but that it has "repeatedly approved expenditure well beyond this threshold." As examples, she points to expenditure for electrical board replacement at a cost of $160,500, pool repairs for $100,000 and a painting contract. She claims those spending decisions were made at committee meetings or at an AGM of the body corporate without owners being provided with proper tenders or full project costings. To support her assertions, she points to the minutes of a committee meeting in July 2025 and the minutes of the May 2025 AGM. She says those minutes do not include any quotes, tenders, or contracts.
• [26] A body corporate must call and hold an AGM within 3 months of the end of its financial year.[7] The body corporate is required to issue a notice for the AGM,[8] which must include, among other things the agenda for the meeting,[9] any explanatory material required, and any other document required by the legislation.
• [27] Some of those other documents the body corporate is required to include with the notice of the AGM are:
  1. the proposed administrative and sinking fund budgets for the scheme;[10]
  2. the previous financial year's statement of accounts;[11]
  3. if there has been an audit of the previous year's accounts, the auditor's certificate;[12]
  4. specific details about each policy of insurance held by the body corporate;[13] and
  5. quotes for any work which would constitute 'major spending.'[14]
• [28] The legislation also requires the body corporate to take and distribute full and accurate minutes of all general meetings, including the AGM.[15] The required information includes the wording of and the votes on the motions proposed and considered at the meeting.[16] I am not aware of any part of the legislation that requires the minutes to include all the supporting documentation (including quotes for proposed expenditure) for motions that was previously distributed with the notice of the AGM.
• [29] In my view, the applicant's claims about committee spending and lack of information provided to owners about spending are completely misconceived and are without substance. In support of her application for interim orders, the applicant included a copy of the minutes of the July 2025 committee meeting. Those minutes, however, do not contain any indication that the committee authorised spending in excess of $49,200.
• [30] The applicant also provided a copy of the minutes for the body corporate's May 2025 AGM. Critically, those minutes tend to defeat rather than support her claims. Those minutes show that three motions for significant expenditure were proposed at that meeting:
  1. Motion 22 presented two quotes (in a group of same issue motions) for the waterproofing of buildings
  2. Motion 23 presented two quotes (also in a group of same issue motions) for the painting of stairwells and foyers, and
  3. Motion 25 presented two quotes (also in a group of same issue motions) for the replacement of a corroded electrical box.
• [31] Although the wording of the motions as included in the minutes reference the quotes as "per the attached proposal," I am satisfied the minutes simply replicate the wording of the motions as presented on the notice and agenda for the AGM.[17] In order to comply with its obligations to ensure "full and accurate minutes," my preliminary view is that the body corporate is not required to re-send the quotes and other explanatory materials it had already provided to owners when it gave notice of the 2025 AGM.
• [32] As part of my investigation of this application, I required the body corporate to provide me with a copy of the notice, agenda, and accompanying materials that were sent for the 2025 AGM. Having reviewed those materials, I am satisfied the AGM materials did in fact include copies of quotes for Motions 22, 23, and 25. For the purposes of the application for interim orders, I accept the representations and evidence that the AGM materials including those quotes were distributed by post to the applicant prior to the AGM.
• [33] In further support of her argument that the body corporate did not comply with the legislative requirements for providing information about spending, the applicant relies on a comment from the body corporate manager that "no tenders were sent out." My preliminary view is that the applicant has misinterpreted this comment.
• [34] I understand the word "tender" to be commonly used interchangeably with the term "quote." More technically, the word "tender" may be used to an offer made by a contractor in response to a "request for tender." At this stage, I consider the most likely explanation is that the body corporate manager was simply confirming that a formal tender process had not been used for these projects and it had therefore not received "tenders" per se, but it had instead sought and received "quotes." As noted above, I am satisfied the body corporate did in fact present competing quotes for owner consideration at the 2025 AGM.
• [35] For these reasons, the applicant has not persuaded me that her claims about the committee authorising spending above its limit have any chance of success, much less the necessary likelihood of success necessary for me to consider making an interim order.

• [36] The applicant also claims the body corporate has mismanaged the finances, failed to provide detailed costings for proposed expenditure, or adequate financial transparency. She says the administrative fund has consistently operated in deficit, leading to constant levy hikes above the CPI rate and which are disproportionate and unreasonable.
  • [37] At each AGM, the body corporate must:
    1. Adopt by way of an ordinary resolution, an administrative fund and a sinking fund budget for each financial year.[18]
    2. The administrative fund budget must be based on estimates of necessary and reasonable spending in the financial year to cover costs of maintaining common property and body corporate assets, insurance, and other recurring expenditure.[19]
    3. The sinking fund budget must provide for a 'reasonable capital amount' to provide for necessary and reasonable spending for the financial year, and to accumulate a proportionate amount of the anticipated spending on capital or non-recurrent expenditure for at least the next 9 years.[20]
    4. Based on the adopted budgets, the body corporate must also, by ordinary resolution, set the total contributions to be levied and the per lot contributions.[21] It must also decide the number of instalments in which those contributions are to be paid, and set the date by which instalments are required.[22]
  • [38] The size of the annual administrative fund budget for a body corporate will depend upon its reasonably anticipated spending for the maintenance of common property and other recurring expenditure. Similarly, the size of the annual sinking fund budget may vary from year to year. Although the size of those budgets may be affected generally by rising prices (inflation), they will also be impacted by other factors including the nature of the buildings and body corporate assets, and the age of the property. Increases in the budgets which in turn means increased levies, does not of itself indicate financial mismanagement or that the levies are unreasonable.
  • [39] The notice of the AGM included the body corporate's audited financials for its financial year ending February 2025. Those financials show that for the most recent financial year, the body corporate recorded income exceeding expenditure for its administrative fund. For the sinking fund, the audited financials show that expenditure did exceed income for the year, however, there remained a positive balance in the sinking fund representing the accumulation of prior levies for future anticipated spending. Information about insurance premiums and related levies was also included.
  • [40] In terms of the current financial year, the notice of the AGM also included proposed budgets for both the administrative and sinking funds. My preliminary view is that body corporate provided ample detail for an owner to assess the reasonableness of the proposed budgets.
  • [41] Moreover, while the body corporate's quarterly levies may have been increasing at a rate above the official inflation rate, this does not of itself indicate those levies are unreasonable. The applicant makes only generalised assertions about spending and does not indicate any specific aspect of body corporate spending she claims is unreasonable nor why any particular spending is disproportionate or unreasonable relative to the maintenance needs of the scheme.
  • [42] At this preliminary stage, I am not satisfied the applicant has presented any serious legal questions to be answered about financial management and unreasonable levies. She has not demonstrated that her claims have a sufficient likelihood of success that would warrant an interim order.

• [43] Where I am not satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions to be considered, I do not consider it necessary to make an interim order. Moreover, given the nature of the circumstances and the balance of harm, I do not consider it would be just and equitable to make either of the orders sought.
• [44] The first order sought by the applicant is effectively a restatement of the legislation. The legislation already applies to the body corporate and its committee and I see no utility much less any urgency in restating the law. The second order sought, is vaguely worded and would potentially operate to restrain the body corporate from raising levies in an amount higher than the most recent levies. In my view, such an order would unreasonably restrain the body corporate from discharging its function to manage the common property and finances. The harm to the body corporate if I was to make such an order and the applicant later failed on her application for final orders far outweighs any harm to the applicant.

• [45] For the reasons given above, I have dismissed the application for interim orders in its entirety.
• [46] If the dispute is not resolved and the applicant does not withdraw the application for final orders, that application will remain to be determined. The application will be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[23] Once that process is complete, the legal questions raised by the applicant may then be addressed by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from all affected parties.
• [47] Finally, an adjudicator may dismiss an application if satisfied that the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. I note that where an application is dismissed on that basis, section 270(3) empowers an adjudicator to award costs of up to $2,000 incurred by the respondent in defending the application. In making a decision whether to award costs, I also note that an adjudicator may have regard to previous applications by the applicant.[24]

[2] Section 227(1)(b) of the Act

[3] Sections 226, 228 and 276 of the Act

[6] Although an applicant must identify a genuine legal issue to be decided, the granting of an interim order by itself does not indicate whether or not an applicant will ultimately be successful on their application for final orders.

[7] Section 73 of the Accommodation Module

[8] Section 77 of the Accommodation Module

[9] Section 83 of the Accommodation Module

[10] Section 150 of the Accommodation Module

[11] Section 165(6) of the Accommodation Module

[12] Section 166(7) of the Accommodation Module

[13] Section 186 of the Accommodation Module

[14] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module

[15] Sections 107 of the Accommodation Module

[16] Sections 107(3) of the Accommodation Module

[17] Sections 107(3)(d) of the Accommodation Module

[18] Section 150(1) of the Accommodation Module

[19] Section 150(2) of the Accommodation Module

[20] Section 150(3) of the Accommodation Module

[21] Sections 150(2)(b), 150(3)(b) and 152(1) of the Accommodation Module

[22] Sections 152(1) of the Accommodation Module

[24] See Section 270(3)(b) of the Act