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

MAINTENANCE UNDER BUILDING FORMAT PLAN- where the drainage and ventilation stack pipe passes through both lot 5 and lot 2 and is severely corroded. Responsibility of body corporate to maintain and repair utility infrastructure which is common property.

OBLIGATION OF OWNER TO MAINTAIN LOT- section 211 Standard Module

EXCLUSIVE USE BY- LAW - where by-law gives exclusive use of an area to lot 5- obligation of owner with exclusive use to maintain the lot

Standard Module ss 180, 192, 211

1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the body corporate is to engage a suitably qualified contractor to repair the corroded drainage and ventilation stack pipe which runs through the kitchen of lot 5, and is common property that the Body Corporate has a responsibility to maintain and repair.
2. The owner of lot 5 is to ensure that the bathroom area of lot 5 is waterproof and that there is no further leakage of water from the lot 5 bathroom into lot 2.
3. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the body corporate is to engage a suitably qualified contractor to repair the sagging ceiling in the common property laundry area.

• [1] Colonial House consists of 5 lots and common property located on a building unit plan at Surfers Paradise. Lots 1 and 2 are located at ground level (level A) while lots 3, 4 and 5 are located on the first level (level B).
• [2] The applicant seeks the following outcomes:
  1. An emergency order that the Respondent Marquez immediately repair all leaks (kitchen pipe and the shower base) within the Respondent's unit in order to stop water ingress into the Applicant's lot and to restore habitability_._
  2. An emergency order that the Body Corporate immediately address and repair the sagging ceiling in the garage, laundry and common-area space beneath the Respondent's unit in order to prevent further damage and to ensure that the common property is safe for all residents and visitors.
  3. That the Respondents must immediately complete all remedial works necessary to restore the Applicant's lot to a safe and habitable condition, including the drain pipe that was disturbed while removing his shower base.

• [3] This is a dispute regarding water ingress, property damage, and related health risks affecting the Applicant's lot 2, which she says was caused by a leak originating from the Respondent's lot 5. The dispute revolves around water damage and black mould in lot 2, which became uninhabitable. The Applicant, who purchased the unit in April 2025, says she developed health problems in May 2025 caused by black mould and stress.
• [4] The Applicant says she is experiencing extensive damage, including black mould, cockroach infestation, and health issues, all stemming from a failed shower base and inadequate waterproofing in the Respondent's lot 5 above. Insurance reports confirm the leak originates from lot 5's shower, yet the claim for Unit 2's damage was rejected due to exclusions in the insurance policy for gradual leaks and wet area failures.
• [5] The applicant is seeking orders due to the Respondent's failure to grant access or undertake necessary repairs. The applicant also says the Body Corporate is repeatedly refusing to intervene, stating the issue is between the two lot owners unless a common property pipe is definitively identified as the cause.

• [6] Multiple inspections, including reports from Ambrose Construct Group provided to the insurer, identified the source of the water ingress as:
  1. Lot 5 Shower Failure: The applicant says the water leak originates from the Respondent's lot 5 bathroom shower base. Reports confirmed the shower failed a flood test, and the grouting, silicone sealants, and broken tiles were in poor condition. This failure meant the wet area did not comply with AS3740 standards. The leak was described as resulting from long-term deterioration.
  2. Secondary Pipe Issue: The Applicant also confirmed that an exposed connecting pipe leaked whenever the upstairs kitchen was used, and this back water (Category 3 black water) was affecting her unit. Ambrose Construct Group later noted that a waste pipe below the lot 2 kitchen cabinetry, leading from the unit above, was heavily corroded and leaking.

• [7] The Applicant says she repeatedly sought repairs and access from the Respondent, Body Corporate, and strata manager from May through to September 2025.
• [8] Denied Access: The Applicant says Access to lot 5 for initial inspection was denied multiple times by the Respondent, who instructed their tenant not to allow inspection without the landlord's supervision. This lack of access delayed the insurance process and prevented the completion of a full investigation.
• [9] Refusal to Repair: The Respondent denied responsibility for the leak. The Respondent insisted the Applicant cut her own ceiling so he could view the leak himself, stating that if he saw the leak, he would repair his bathroom. The Applicant complied (August 4, 2025) and the Respondent observed the leak, yet as at the date of the application the applicant says he still refused to carry out permanent repairs, instead conditioning his repair on the Body Corporate fixing a separate pipe issue.
• [10] Ongoing Damage: Despite knowing the extent of the damage, the Respondent continued to use the leaking facilities (shower and kitchen sink), worsening the damage in lot 2.
• [11] The applicant says that in September 2025, the respondent removed his shower base but did not complete the repair work, leaving the applicant's ceiling open and disturbing a pipe in the process.
• [12] The applicant has also raised concerns over the safety of the entrance to unit-2 as the plasterboard ceiling is sagging. Ambrose Construct Group actioned a make safe to the plasterboard ceiling as the customer raised safety concerns. It has been confirmed that the sagging plasterboard has existed in this state for many years and pre-dates the applicant's purchase of lot 2.

• [13] The applicant says this damage has rendered the Applicant's unit uninhabitable due to black mould and water damage. She also says she has experienced significant health impacts, requiring hospitalization on July 19, 2025.
• [14] The ongoing issues included food contamination from black mould, a cockroach infestation, and the collapse of a kitchen cabinet. The Applicant required temporary hotel accommodation on several occasions while mould remediation was attempted, but drying could not be completed because the source leak remained active. The Applicant is forced to rely on baby wipes for basic hygiene since her shower is unusable.

• [15] The Applicant says she made insurance claims but her insurance claim (H042846616) was rejected twice. Suncorp confirmed the damage was caused by a leaking shower from Unit 5. The policy contains a specific exclusion that does not cover loss or damage caused by a leaking shower floor, base, or wet areas. The assessor was also of the view that the damage was due to wear, tear and gradual deterioration, and that the Applicant was aware of building defects prior to purchase.
• [16] The Body Corporate (via Body Corporate Manager) repeatedly advised the Applicant that the leak was primarily an owner-to-owner matter unless the leak originated from common property or shared utility infrastructure, and they were not responsible for enforcing action against Lot 5. They requested the Applicant provide a plumber's report confirming a common property water pipe was the cause of the leak before they would intervene. The applicant also says they failed to address the sagging ceiling, which placed all occupants at risk.

• [17] The first and second respondents were afforded the opportunity to make submissions. A submission was received from the first respondent but a no submission was received from the body corporate.
• [18] The first respondent says the applicant's main complaints involve three alleged defects:

• [19] The Issue: The Applicant complained that the First Respondent's shower base had disturbed pipe works leading to a minor leak into lot 2.
• [20] Response/Status: The First Respondent argues the leak was minor, representing a nuisance rather than a structural risk or serious health hazard, as evidenced by the Applicant's own tendered video footage. Further, the first Respondent says the leak has been fixed. The fix involved shutting off the water supply to lot 5 on 5 August, 2025, removing the shower base on 9 September 2025, and replacing all pipe work on 18 September 2025.

• [21] The Issue: The Applicant complained that the Body Corporate failed to fix a leak in the ventilation stack pipe that passes through both lot 5 and lot 2.
• [22] Status/Nature of Pipe: The First Respondent says a specialist plumbing report determined there is a leak from what is described as a "ventilation stack pipe". This pipe serves lot 5's kitchen sink, provides ventilation to an underground waste drain, and then exits into an underground waste water service serving multiple units.
• [23] The First Respondent says that because the ventilation stack pipe passes through several boundary structures (including lot 5's roof, common property, and lot 2's concrete slab), it is legally defined as common property. The Body Corporate is responsible for administering and fixing common property. Despite being on notice, the Body Corporate has failed to rectify this leak.
• [24] Further, a leak detection report conducted on 2 September 2025, confirmed a sewer line failure. The report noted that the property is old (50-60 years) and the plumbing is in poor condition. The issue was identified as a discharge pipe (galvanized piping) from the upper level kitchen (lot 5) that had rusted and separated from the floor drainage system. This defect is considered age related wear and tear and the corroded pipe requires replacement.

• [25] The Applicant complains that the Body Corporate failed to remedy a sagging ceiling in the garage area. This sagging ceiling crosses from lot 2's garage to lot 5's garage.
• [26] The First respondent says the property interests of lot 2 and lot 5 differ for this area. Lot 2's garage is private property and part of lot 2 (ie. part of its 56 square meters marked on the plan). However, lot 5 holds an entitlement to exclusive use over the area marked as "Carport No. 5" (which is part of the common property on the ground level) by virtue of By-Law 42, added in 1977. The First Respondent believes that the Body Corporate is liable to repair this part of common property and should therefore repair the sagging ceiling in carport no.5.
• [27] In conclusion the First Respondent states that:

1. The application should be dismissed insofar as it seeks orders against the first respondent.

2. The body corporate should be ordered to carry out remediation works to fix:

◦ The leak in the ventilation stack pipe (common property).

◦ The sagging ceiling in the common property held under exclusive use by the First Respondent (lot 5) for use as a garage.

• [28] The Applicant seeks the following outcomes:
  1. An emergency order that the Respondent Marquez immediately repair all leaks (kitchen pipe and the shower base) within the Respondent's unit in order to stop water ingress into the Applicant's lot and to restore habitability_._
  2. An emergency order that the Body Corporate immediately address and repair the sagging ceiling in the garage, laundry and common-area space beneath the Respondent's unit in order to prevent further damage and to ensure that the common property is safe for all residents and visitors.
  3. That the Respondents must immediately complete all remedial works necessary to restore the Applicant's lot to a safe and habitable condition, including the drain pipe that was disturbed while removing his shower base.
• [29] This dispute involves the following property defects:
  1. A leak from the Shower Base in lot 5 causing leakage into lot 2 below.
  2. A leak from the kitchen area in lot 5 where a steel wastewater / ventilation stack pipe has severely corroded.
  3. Sagging ceilings in the garage area and laundry area.

• [30] The applicant initially lodged a claim with Suncorp, the insurer of the building. Suncorp engaged Ambrose Construct Pty. Ltd. who attended the site on 11 June 2025 to determine the source of water ingress from lot 5 into lot 2.
• [31] In order to locate the source of the water leakage into lot 2, they conducted a number of tests including a flood test to the base of the lot 5 shower. It was determined that water was leaking from the lot 5 shower base into lot 2 and that this was attributable to missing tiles, missing grouting and the poor condition of silicone seals.
• [32] The Applicant has tendered video footage of this leak which the respondent says, was of a minor nature rather than one creating a structural risk or causing a serious health hazard. However, in any event, the leak has now been fixed.
• [33] The First Respondent says they shut off the water supply to lot 5 on 5 August 2025. The First Respondent told their tenants that the water would be shut off until further notice. On 11 August 2025 tenants in lot 5 vacated the premises with the exception of one tenant who remained, but undertook not to use the water.
• [34] They say they then replaced the shower base on 9 September 2025, replaced all pipe work on 18 September 2025 and then checked for further leakage, which was not found.

Leak from corroded steel wastewater / ventilation stack pipe

• [35] Following the applicant's cabinet maker stripping Kitchen wall linings, Ambrose Construct Pty. Ltd. re-attended the property. They noted that a metal waste pipe running through lot 5 and lot 2 was heavily corroded. The cabinet maker advised that the drain pipe leaked externally when the unit above used their Kitchen sink.
• [36] On 2 September 2025, a representative from RCC National, an Insurance Panel Builder, inspected the site and prepared a Plumbing Specialist Report. In that report they noted that the insured had complained about water leakage from lot 5 into the kitchen ceiling of lot 2. which has resulted in damage to the downstairs unit.
• [37] RCC National says that after obtaining access to a lower level unit, it was seen that the discharge pipe coming from the upper level kitchen was constructed from galvanised piping and the lower section where entering the floor drainage system had been rusted and was separated from the System.
• [38] After completing flood testing from the upper level kitchen, it was noted that there is water exiting the waste pipe at the junction on the upper level where the kitchen enters the discharge pipe and this was confirmed by thermal imaging.
• [39] Their Report confirmed that the waste pipe servicing the upstairs kitchen is constructed from aged, galvanized piping that has rusted and separated, concluding that this damage is due to general wear and tear requiring replacement.
• [40] I perused photographs of this pipe and not that it is very corroded. It is probable that this pipe is around 50 years old.
• [41] The waste pipe is more accurately described as a "ventilation stack pipe", which serves two purposes. First, it provides ventilation to an underground waste drain. Second, it clears waste water from lot 5's kitchen sink, passes between lot 2's kitchen and shower areas, and then exits into an underground waste water service which serves multiple units at the complex.[1]
• [42] The ventilation stack pipe passes through several boundary structures, including:

(b) the Common Property between lot 5's floor and lot 2's ceiling;

• [43] I am of the view that having regard to section 180 of the Standard Module, the ventilation stack pipe, which passes through several boundary structures, is common property which the Body Corporate has a responsibility to maintain.

• [44] Thirdly, the applicant seeks an order an emergency order that the Body Corporate address and repair the sagging ceiling in the garage area and laundry.
• [45] The applicant says the plasterboard ceiling on level A was sagging in various places including in the lot 2 garage area. On 27 May 2025 she notified the insurer regarding the sagging ceiling on level A.
• [46] Ambrose Construct Pty. Ltd. attended the site on 11 June 2025 and inspected the ceiling. They noted that the multiple layers of plasterboard lining had been sagging for many years and pre-dated the purchase of the property by the applicant. Although the sagging ceiling was not the result of an insured event, Ambrose Construct took action to make safe the plasterboard ceiling safe including fixing 70mm x35mm x 4.8m timber with screws across the ceiling to the underside of the hardwood floor joists, through 3 layers of ceiling sheet at 600mm centres. The same method was repeated in the laundry with 900mm timber.
• [47] I note that the applicant is particularly concerned about the sagging ceiling in the garage area. This sagging ceiling crosses from lot 2's garage to lot 5's garage.
• [48] The first respondent says the garage area is used by both lot 5 and lot 2 but the property interests of lot 2 and lot 5 differ for this area. Lot 2's garage is private property and part of lot 2 (ie. part of its 56 square meters marked on the plan). However, lot 5 holds an entitlement to exclusive use over the area marked as "Carport No. 5" (which is part of the common property on the ground level) by virtue of By-Law 42, added in 1977.
• [49] Section 211 of the Standard Module provides that the owner of a lot must maintain their lot in good condition**.** This means that they are obliged to maintain the interior, fixtures, and fittings of the lot in good repair. This is subject to paragraph 180(2)(b) which provides that the body corporate is responsible for maintenance of essential supporting framework.
• [50] As the lot 2 garage area is part of the applicant's lot, the body corporate is not obliged the repair the sagging plasterboard ceiling in the lot 2 garage area. This is the responsibility of the applicant. Plasterboard is a common interior wall and ceiling lining material, consisting of a gypsum core sandwiched between layers of heavy-duty paper. Obviously it does not come within the definition of "essential supporting framework".
• [51] Consequently, the applicant is responsible for repairing the sagging plasterboard ceiling in the lot 2 garage area.
• [52] I note that the lot 5 garage area is actually an area of common property, over which the first respondent is entitled to exclusive use for the purposes of car parking and storage. By-law 42 provides as follows:

42. That the Proprietor for the time being of Unit 5 shall be entitled to the exclusive use, occupation

and benefit of that portion of the common property on the ground level of the said Building Units

Plan marked as the "Storeroom" and "Carport No. 5" and on the first floor level marked as "Sun Deck" on the plan annexed hereto.

• [53] Section 192 of the Standard Module provides as follows:

192 Conditions and obligations under exclusive use by-law

(1) If the owner of a lot included in the community titles scheme, to whom rights are in the first instance given under an exclusive use by-law, agrees in writing, the by-law may impose conditions, including, for example, conditions that require the owner to do 1 or both of the following things -

(a) make a payment to the scheme's body corporate or the owners of lots included in the scheme;

(b) make periodic payments to the scheme's body corporate or the owners of lots included in the scheme.

(2) An exclusive use by-law is taken, in the absence of other specific provision in the by-law for maintenance and operating costs, to make the owner of the lot to whom exclusive use or other rights are given responsible for the maintenance of and operating costs for the part of the common property to which the exclusive use by-law applies.

(3) However, if the lot was created under a building format plan of subdivision, in the absence of other specific provision in the by-law, the owner of the lot is not responsible for -

(a) maintaining in good condition roofing membranes that -

(i) are on the part of the common property to which the by-law applies; and

(ii) provide protection for lots or common property; or

(b) maintaining in a structurally sound condition any of the following elements of scheme land that are part of a structure that is on the part of the common property to which the by-law applies and is not constructed by or for the owner -

(iii) essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls.

• [54] Consequently, the owner of lot 5 is responsible for repairing the sagging plasterboard ceiling in the lot 2 garage area.
• [55] Finally, I turn to the laundry area. A perusal of the building units plan 2391, exclusive use plans accompanying by-law 42, and photographs, indicate that the laundry is an area of common property and that no lot is entitled to exclusive use of the laundry area. Consequently, the body corporate is responsible for the maintenance of this area pursuant to section 180 of the Standard Module.
• [56] I note that Ambrose Construct Pty. Ltd. attended the site on 11 June 2025 and inspected the ceiling. They noted that plasterboard lining was sagging in the laundry area and undertook "make safe" work which involved fixing 900mm lengths of timber with screws across the ceiling to the underside of the hardwood floor joists. I am of the view that pursuant to section 180 of the Standard Module, the body corporate is required to repair the ceiling in the ground floor laundry area.
• [57] For the above reasons I have made the following orders:
  1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the body corporate is to engage a suitably qualified contractor to repair the corroded drainage and ventilation stack pipe which runs through the kitchen of lot 5, and is common property that the Body Corporate has a responsibility to maintain and repair.
  2. The owner of lot 5 is to ensure that the bathroom area of lot 5 is waterproof and that there is no further leakage of water from the lot 5 bathroom into lot 2.
  3. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the body corporate is to engage a suitably qualified contractor to repair the sagging ceiling in the common property laundry area.

[1] Diagram in Plumbing Specialist Report by RCC National at page 6.