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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION - whether a motion to raise a special levy should be amended to reduce the applicant's contribution because the motion was "unreasonable, lacked proper notice, and was not adequately supported by documentation".

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS - whether the body corporate must provide the applicant with copies of records where she has asked various questions but failed to request specific records or attempt to pay the prescribed fee.

Act, s 205(2)(b); Standard Module, ss 91, 162(2)&(5).

• [1] Some fences around Ms Teh's exclusive use courtyard adjacent to her lot 4 require maintenance. The fences are on three sides and separate the courtyard from:
  1. a neighbouring property (not part of Colbran Court)
  2. a neighbouring exclusive use courtyard for another lot within Colbran Court, and
  3. unallocated common property of Colbran Court.
• [2] Ms Teh had a building and pest inspection done for $847 that found the fences:
  1. are rotted in parts, and
  2. are leaning in places "due to the settlement/damaged retaining walls/tree felling".
• [3] Ms Teh concluded from this that the body corporate is entirely responsible for repairing or replacing the fences.
• [4] The body corporate's position, as expressed in an email from the committee secretary, is that:
  1. the body corporate and the neighbouring owner will share the cost of replacing the fence that forms a boundary between them, and
  2. Ms Teh must meet half the cost of replacing the sections of fence that separate her courtyard from the neighbouring courtyard and unallocated common property, with the neighbouring lot owner and the body corporate respectively to pay the other half.[1]
• [5] At motion 13 of an annual general meeting on 6 June 2024, the body corporate resolved to raise a special levy of $12,000 "to fund capital works to common property to include tree removal, downpipes and fence replacements". As the committee secretary subsequently explained to Ms Teh, part of these funds will be put toward the body corporate's portion of the fence repairs.[2] Ms Teh objects that the resolution is "unreasonable and disproportionate to the actual benefit received by their lot". She says:

This breaches section 94 of the BCCM Act, which requires the body corporate to act reasonably. The committee has not acted reasonably in levying this contribution without proper procedure. Additionally, section 102(1) requires contributions to be proportionate to lot entitlement and properly authorised.

The levy was issued without justification or breakdown, and it places an unfair financial burden on the applicant, who has started the process of consulting engineer for the work. The applicant seeks a reduction or restructuring of payment to address this procedural unfairness.

• [6] Ms Teh also claims that the committee failed to provide her with copies of records relating to the fence.
• [7] She seeks orders in the following terms:

Seek an order that the specific contribution amount levied against the applicant in the motion 13 of the 2024 AGM be reduced to $3000.00 on the basis that the contribution amount was unreasonable, lacked proper notice, and was not adequately supported by documentation under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

In the alternative, the applicant seeks an order that the amount be paid via offset of the contribution amount that has been made.

Seek an outcome relating to accessing records of the body corporate, particularly regarding the fencing replacement details on common property.

Provide a copy of the full quote, invoice, and scope of work relating to the fencing repair/replacement works at the common area outside the applicant's lot, which was approved without proper disclosure. Provide a copy of the meeting minutes and resolutions (committee or general meeting) where such works were discussed and/or approved.

• [8] Ms Teh asks that her contribution pursuant to motion 13 is reduced to $3,000. But $12,000 is to be raised equally from all 12 lot owners, so her contribution is only $1,000.
• [9] She claims a lack of proper notice or procedure in relation to motion 13 but does not elaborate. The body corporate must give at least 21 days' notice of a general meeting.[3] Ms Teh does not say this did not occur.
• [10] Ms Teh refers to the requirement for levies to be "proportionate to lot entitlement and properly authorised". Motion 13 proposed raising $1,000 from each of the 12 owners. That is consistent with the contribution schedule lot entitlements in the community management statement. They are recorded as 1 for each lot, meaning each lot should be levied 1/12th of the total to be raised.[4]
• [11] Special levies must be authorised by ordinary resolution.[5] Motion 13 was slated for decision by ordinary resolution, which it achieved with six votes in favour and none against.
• [12] Ms Teh criticises a lack of supporting information for motion 13. The committee says it discussed the motion at the AGM but Ms Teh did not attend. The Act does not prescribe the information the committee must provide in support of its motions. The motion must not be misleading,[6] but there is no suggestion of that here. If owners did not feel they had enough information to support the motion, they were at liberty to vote against it. The six owners in attendance at the AGM apparently felt sufficiently informed. No other owner made a submission to express any concerns with motion 13.
• [13] Ms Teh claims to have suffered an "unfair financial burden", yet she has been levied the same amount as other owners. She may be referring to the $847 she spent on a building and pest inspection which she believes should be borne by the body corporate. But there is no indication that the body corporate required the inspection or requested it of Ms Teh. The inspection included Ms Teh's lot, not just the fence around her courtyard. The body corporate would have had no interest in that.
• [14] Ms Teh seems to believe the body corporate should bear the cost of the report because the report showed the body corporate to be responsible for the condition of the fence. But the report stated the damage was due to rot, settlement, the removal of nearby trees, and a damaged retaining wall. It is unclear how the body corporate is alleged to have caused the rot or settlement. The damaged retaining wall appears to be part of the neighbouring property and hence is not the body corporate's responsibility. I have little information on the trees or their removal, except an email from Ms Teh explaining that some trees on adjoining common property were once "supporting the structure".[7] If the fence needed to lean on the trees, that indicates it was not in good condition even before the trees were removed.
• [15] I am not persuaded that motion 13 should be amended as sought by Ms Teh, or that her contribution should be offset against "the contribution amount that has been made" (which I take to be a reference to the $847 she spent on the building and pest inspection).
• [16] I also note that there is a tension between Ms Teh's request for her contribution to be reduced and her assertion that the body corporate is entirely responsible for the repairs to her courtyard fence. If she is right and the body corporate must bear a greater share of the cost, it will need to raise more money from owners, not less. If owners are levied according to their contribution schedule lot entitlements as Ms Teh insists and the Standard Module requires, Ms Teh's contribution would increase along with everyone else's.

• [17] An owner is entitled to copies of body corporate records if they request them and pay the prescribed fee.[8] Ms Teh wants copies of "the full quote, invoice, and scope of work relating to the fencing repair/replacement works" and "the meeting minutes and resolutions (committee or general meeting) where such works were discussed and/or approved".
• [18] But the correspondence Ms Teh submitted in support of this order does not include requests for these records or any attempt to pay the prescribed fee. Ms Teh asked questions of the body corporate, but did not request specific records. For instance, she asked:

Could you advise when the Body Corp would take action to repair the fence as it is now the Body Corp responsibility.[9]

...could you please advise the reason that the quotation has already been provided by Allen Wood in December 2023, which is way before we find out who caused the damage...[10]

Do all 12 lot unit owners need to pay $1000 each, or it only applies to Unit 4?[11]

...the body corporate has previously agreed to 50/50 split on the fence cost based on a quote provided by Mr Allen Wood. So then what was the AGM motion 13 for?[12]

Can you please clarify the following as per the AGM on 07/06/2024, where it stated $12000 special levy to fund tree removal, downpipes and fence replacement:

1. What is the breakdown for tree removal, downpipes and fence replacements?

2. With the fence replacement, which area of fencing is included for the replacements?[13]

• [19] Ms Teh has not shown motion 13 to be irregular, nor has she demonstrated that the body corporate breached its obligation to provide copies of records upon request and payment of the prescribed fee. The application is dismissed.

[1] Katrina Pirlo email to applicant, 28 February 2025.

[6] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [56]- [72].

[7] Email to David Lanham, 30 April 2024.

[9] Email to David Lanham, 27 June 2024.

[10] Email to Judy Robertson, 5 July 2024.

[11] Email to Judy Robertson, 16 August 2024.

[12] Email to Shelby Tonkin, 3 September 2024.

[13] Email to Judy Robertson, 28 February 2025.