Whether an interim order is warranted in the circumstances.

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld)

ss 279

1. Until further or final order and otherwise with effect for no longer than 12 months, the body corporate for Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments CTS 39725 must not implement or take actions in reliance on the committee resolution pursuant to motion 6.2 passed on or about 19 November 2025, in relation to the allegedly withheld emails.
2. Until further or final order and otherwise with effect for no longer than 12 months, the body corporate for Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments CTS 39725 must not issue or authorise any new circulars, minutes, newsletters or emails to owners or occupiers which state or imply that Cassie Smith has unlawfully removed, or demand that she return, the allegedly withheld emails the subject of the said resolution, other than any documents strictly required to be sent in connection with this adjudication application.

• [1] The applicant, Cassie Smith, is the owner of lot 2506 in Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments CTS 39725.
• [2] She is concerned that the respondent body corporate is engaging in what she describes as a sustained pattern of unreasonable conduct and harassment in relation to an underlying dispute about her alleged possession of and failure to return certain body corporate records. Those records are emails in a body corporate account which says she deleted in 2024, acting on advice, before she handed over the email account as an outgoing committee member.
• [3] Her immediate concern is that the body corporate committee has now passed a resolution to issue a notice to her requiring the return of those records, which could expose her to a penalty for non-compliance, even though she has told the committee that she does not hold them. To that end, she seeks orders about that resolution and other related matters.
• [4] Presently for my considertion is her application for interim orders, expressed in the following terms:

That, until the final adjudicator's decision on this application or further order, the Body Corporate for Clifton Views Lux Beach Apartments CTS 39725 must not take any steps to implement or act on Committee Motion 6.2 passed on 19 November 2025, including: issuing any further letters or notices to me that rely on Motion 6.2; and using Motion 6.2 as a basis to commence, or to prepare to commence, any proceedings or complaint in another jurisdiction (for example, QCAT or a court) in relation to the same "2.07GB of emails" issue, whether directly or through its committee, body corporate manager or caretaking service contractor. > > An interim order that, until the final adjudicator's decision on this application or further order, the Body Corporate for Clifton Views Lux Beach Apartments CTS 39725 must not issue or authorise any new circulars, minutes, newsletters or emails to owners or occupiers which: state or imply that I have "unlawfully removed" body corporate records; or demand that I "return" 2.07GB of records from the com4 email account, other than any documents strictly required to be sent in connection with this adjudication process. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any such communications proposed or requested by the owner of Lot 102 (Fullers Management Pty Ltd), to ensure the Body Corporate does not further circulate the disputed allegations while this application is being decided.

• [5] The body corporate for Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments is governed by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), and its community management statement specifies the applicable regulation module to be the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)
• [6] I am satisfied that the applicant, being a lot owner who is in dispute with their body corporate, has standing to bring this application, and that I have jurisdiction to determine the application.[1]

The minutes of the committee meeting of 19 November 2025 record that motion 6.2 was passed in the following terms:

6.2 AGM 27/05/2025, Motion 17: Return of Files

AGM Motion as submitted by owner:

That the committee be instructed to issue under Section 224 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Accommodation Module), a prescribed notice to Cassie Smith, owner of lot 2506 to return within 14 days the Body Corporate records on or about June 5th 2024, namely 2.07 GB of email and computer files stored in 5 folders named, Google Takeout, Doug Wroe, Grievances, Meetings and By-Laws

It was noted that this motion is not enforceable

Motion CARRIED.

Votes: Yes 55 No 19 Abstain 9 Invalid 0

MOTION That the committee send a notice to Cassie Smith and request the handover of these email

RESOLVED that the motion be carried Yes 5 No 0 Abstain 0

• [7] Motion 6.2 directly quotes motion 17 of the annual general meeting on 27 May 2025, which was proposed about the same issue. The minutes of that meeting for motion 17 carry the notation "It was noted that this motion is not enforceable", which the applicant says is a reference to the motion being ruled out of order at the meeting.
• [8] Section 244 of the Accommodation Module (and its equivalents in other modules) empowers a body corporate to issue a notice to a member of the body corporate, a body corporate manager, a service contractor or the original owner requiring them to return a record or other document of the body corporate. A penalty of up to 20 penalty units applies for non-compliance. The committee's resolution pursuant to motion 6.2 is to send such a notice to the applicant. The same records are also the subject of a committee resolution on 6 August 2024.
• [9] The applicant says that, taken together, these resolutions and their wording, which refer to a penalty for non-compliance, are building a sequence of demands and resolutions the committee may rely on as a basis for legal proceedings and the imposition upon her of a penalty under the Act.
• [10] The applicant says that she does not hold these records and that the prospects of a proceeding against her are very low. She also says that, nonetheless, if the body corporate is not restrained on an interim basis, it can proceed at any time to issue the notice referred to in motion 6.2 and then rely upon it to take such steps against her, before this adjudication application decides whether those motions and demands are lawful or reasonable. That would thereby force her to respond to separate enforcement proceedings about the same underlying issue.
• [11] The applicant says that she did not previously seek an interim order about this because she reasonably believed the issue might still be resolved internally once the committee had further information from her and also her cease and desist letter of 19 November 25, but urgency now arises because motion 6.2 expressly resolves to send a further notice and to continue the body corporate's demands.
• [12] By way of background in relation to the allegedly withheld emails, the applicant says:

¾ The dispute relates to a Gmail account from which it is said the applicant unlawfully removed about 2 gigabytes of body corporate records.

¾ She deleted certain records on the advice of the body corporate manager before handing back access to the email account as an outgoing committee member.

¾ When she was first provided with access to the email account in 2023 it was effectively empty and it was not explained to her that any records within it would be treated as part of the formal body corporate records, and nor did she receive any guidance about record keeping expectations for that account.

¾ It was her understanding that the formal body corporate records were held separately by the body corporate manager. Had she been told otherwise she would have handled the retention of the records differently.

¾ She deleted the emails acting in good faith on the advice of the body corporate manager.

¾ Even if it is the case that they were body corporate records which she should not have deleted, because she acted on someone else's advice and in good faith she should not be held responsible for that.

¾ Motion 17 of the annual general meeting had been proposed by the caretaker. The AGM minutes record that motion 17 was both ruled out of order and also put to the vote without a recorded result. If a motion is ruled out of order it should not be put to the vote and no outcome should be recorded. Otherwise, retaining it in the minutes in that way gives a misleading impression that owners supported the substance of an invalid motion and it now forms part of the official body corporate record relied on in later correspondence and in committee motion 6.2.

¾ The committee passed motion 6.2 despite having a statutory declaration from her and emails and screenshots to the effect that she does not have the emails to produce. That is also despite the fact that the adjudicator in application number 0446-2024, concerning the caretaker's request for access to body corporate records, clearly indicated that there can be no reasonable prospect of producing emails which have, rightly or wrongly, been deleted.[2]

• [13] The applicant provides in her application a statutory declaration given by her on 27 November 2025, to the effect (among other things):

¾ On or about 7 May 2024, she sought the advice of the body corporate manager about the procedure for handing over records to the new committee including the email account, and she was told by the body corporate manager words to the effect "If it were me, I would delete everything and just hand back the account shell". She was also told that the com4 email account was not an official body corporate records keeper, that all relevant emails were already held by the secretary or in the body corporate manager's own system, and that those were the official records.

¾ Relying on the body corporate manager's advice, she deleted most of the contents of the com4 account, retaining only a folder relating to an insurance claim, believing those to be the only copies of those records.

¾ On 6 June 2024, she emailed the new chairperson and the body corporate manager confirming the handover of the com4 account and also provided the recovery email account and the new temporary password. She also directed them to the Google Drive folder containing the undeleted insurance claim documents, and invited them to contact her with any further questions.

• [14] Interim orders are made pursuant to section 279 of the Act. An interim order has effect for the period stated in the order, not to be longer than one year, and may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made. It otherwise lapses when an application is finally determined or withdrawn.
• [15] Interim orders are usually made as a temporary restraining injunction, to stop some imminent and serious harm being caused to the applicant. To get such an order the applicant must satisfy the adjudicator that they have an arguable case for the proposed final orders, sometimes called a prima facie case, and that, in light of the likely effects of the decision on the opposing parties, on balance it is preferrable to make the order than to not, which is sometimes called the balance of convenience. These are really just two aspects of the same ultimate question of whether an interim order is justified in the circumstances.[3]
• [16] The applicant describes the committee's or alternatively the body corporate's actions as unreasonable. That claim raises implications under sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act, which require a body corporate and a committee (respectively) to act reasonably. The words "act reasonably" bear their ordinary meaning, and what is reasonable is an objective test depending on the circumstances including matters known and unknown to those taking the action.[4]
• [17] The applicant has made a statutory declaration that she does not possess the records the subject of motion 6.2 and further that the committee is aware of that. No doubt the justice of the peace who witnessed it informed the applicant of the of the substantial consequences for making a false declaration, and so for present purposes I accept that to be true, subject to any evidence the body corporate might be able to produce to the contrary. She therefore has an arguable case that the committee and/or the body corporate have acted unreasonably in continuing to demand the return of the emails.
• [18] I also consider the balance of convenience favours the applicant. Regardless of whether the applicant possesses the emails, the body corporate has been without them some time. I cannot see any urgent need for them to issue the section 244 notice. On the other hand, the applicant will possibly suffer the cost, and certainly the distress and embarrassment, of dealing with the notice if it is issued, and with any communications issued by the body corporate about the issue to owners.
• [19] In light of that, I will make interim orders to the effect of those requested by the applicant.

The Commissioner may refer a matter for adjudication of an interim order application without affected persons having an opportunity to make submissions on it.[5] In the circumstances, I did not seek submissions from the Body Corporate's committee and the owners as I was satisfied the material before was sufficient for the purpose. They will be invited to give their views on the final orders before I make that decision, in due course.

In the meantime, the body corporate may request that the interim order to be varied or cancelled, under section 279(2) of the Act, if it considers there are matters which should have led me to conclude it was preferable not to order that they be restrained from acting on motion 6.2, pending a final determination of the matter.

[1] See Act, ss 227(1), 229(3), 238(1), 276(1)

[2] Apparently a reference to paragraph [57] of that decision, which is published as Clifton Views Luxury Beach Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 329

[3] See for example SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[4] See generally Ainsworth v Albrecht [2016] HCA 40; Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177