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 ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted in the circumstances.

1. I hereby order that pending final determination of this application, the Body Corporate for Crown Towers must not:
   1. delete, alter or interfere with any surveillance recording system owned or operated by or on behalf of the body corporate on scheme land;
   2. delete, alter or interfere with any recordings made by any such recording system, other than to suspend any scheduled overwriting of recordings currently held.
2. This interim order has effect until 6 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended (whichever is earlier).

• [1] This dispute concerns access to body corporate surveillance records.
• [2] The applicant is the registered owner of Lot 1 (and also the caretaking service contractor for Crown Towers). On 15 August 2025, the applicant wrote to the body corporate, requesting that it provide "CCTV footage capturing the entirety of the main lobby and foyer located on the ground floor of the scheme as recorded on Thursday, 14 August 2025 between 1:30pm and 3:00pm." The applicant stated that it is willing and able to pay the prescribed fee and requested an invoice to enable payment. The applicant requested the body corporate to provide the footage by 5pm on 22 August 2025. To date, the body corporate has not provided a response.
• [3] The applicant says problematically:
  1. the requested CCTV footage is set up to be periodically overwritten;
  2. there is a genuine risk that the footage could be deleted by the body corporate prior to the next scheduled overwrite;
  3. because the applicant does not have control of the surveillance recording system, it is unknown exactly when the CCTV footage is scheduled to be overwritten; and
  4. if the requested CCTV footage is deleted or overwritten, the applicant's rights under the Act to the footage will be permanently eroded and the body corporate will be placed in a precarious legal position in respect of its statutory obligations under section 205 of the Act.
• [4] The applicant accordingly seeks (emergency) final orders to the effect that:

(1) within 7 days of receiving payment of the prescribed fee from the applicant, the body corporate must do all things necessary to provide the applicant with immediate access to the surveillance recording system owned or operated by or on behalf of the body corporate on scheme land, so that the applicant can copy the requested CCTV footage held on that system; and

(2) the body corporate must ensure that such access is provided as soon as possible, and by no later than 5pm on Friday, 29 August 2025.

• [5] In the interim, the applicant requests orders to restrain the body corporate from:

(1) deleting, altering or interfering with any surveillance recording system owned or operated by or on behalf of the body corporate on scheme land;

(2) deleting, altering or interfering with any recordings made by any such recording system, other than to suspend any scheduled overwriting of recordings currently held.

• [6] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted.

• [7] I am satisfied that this matter falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] An adjudicator may make an order to resolve a dispute in the context of a community title scheme between a lot owner and the body corporate about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act.[2] Further, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3]
• [8] The Commissioner has referred the application to me to decide whether an interim order is warranted. There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from the respondent or affected parties before an interim order is decided.[4]

• [9] An interim order will only be granted if it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances. To determine whether it is just and equitable to grant interim relief, it is necessary to consider:
  1. whether the application raises a serious legal issue with a likelihood of success at final determination, that is, whether there is any merit to the application; and
  2. whether the balance of convenience favours the interim order being granted. This requires balancing the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing interim relief if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular significance is whether an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [10] I understand from the applicant's version of events that on Thursday, 14 August 2025 between 1:30pm and 3:00pm, representatives of the applicant attended a meeting with a representative of the body corporate committee. During this meeting, the applicant says one of its representatives was threatened in a physical intimidatory manner. It is this alleged incident that the applicant appears to have requested the body corporate to provide CCTV footage of.
• [11] Section 205 of the Act provides for information to be given to interested persons. Specifically, within 7 days of receiving a written request from the interested person accompanied by the prescribed fee, the body corporate must do either or both of the following as requested:[5]

(1) permit the person to inspect the body corporate's records -

(i) if the person and the body corporate agree on a way to inspect the records - in accordance with the agreement; or

(ii) otherwise - in person at a reasonable time and place nominated by the body corporate;

(2) give the person a copy of a record kept by the body corporate -

(i) if the person and the body corporate agree on the way the copy will be given - in accordance with the agreement; or

(ii) otherwise - in the way prescribed under the regulation module applying to the scheme.

• [12] Schedule 6 of the Act defines 'records' for a body corporate to mean "the rolls, registers and other documents kept by the body corporate under this Act (including under the regulation module applying to the scheme)." The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 includes information stored or recorded by means of a computer in the definition of a 'record'.
• [13] Previous adjudicators' decisions have held that video footage captured and stored electronically can fall within the definition of a record.[6]
• [14] Prima facie, the applicant appears to have made a valid request under section 205 of the Act for a body corporate record and would be entitled to access the requested footage. However, the current application seems somewhat premature in that the body corporate has 7 days within which to comply with the request. As the applicant's request was made on 15 August 2025, the body corporate has until 22 August 2025 to provide the requested record. I note this is also the deadline the applicant has given to the body corporate in correspondence.
• [15] While the breach is only anticipatory at this stage, (given the body corporate may still provide the requested record within the statutory timeframe), there are legitimate reasons why interim relief should still be considered in the circumstances. These are discussed below.

• [16] In regard to the balance of convenience, the applicant submits that:
  1. it is understood that the requested CCTV footage is programmed to be held for a maximum of 30 days before it is automatically overridden by the surveillance recording system. It is unknown when the footage will be overwritten by the system;
  2. because of the content of the requested CCTV footage as described, there is a genuine risk that a member of the body corporate could delete the footage prior to the next scheduled overwrite;
  3. under section 205(2) of the Act, the body corporate has 7 days to provide the requested footage, by which time it may be overwritten. Additionally, the applicant does not have confirmation that it is possible to stop any automatic overriding of the recorded footage;
  4. if the interim orders are not made, irreparable harm could occur in that the surveillance recordings could be deleted or altered, resulting in the applicant's right of access being permanently eroded, and the final orders being frustrated and incapable of implementation;
  5. conversely, the body corporate will suffer little or no prejudice if the interim orders are made as they will simply maintain the status quo to allow the body corporate to comply with section 205 of the Act, without risk to the applicant that the requested footage will be deleted or overwritten.
• [17] In the circumstances, I consider that the balance of convenience weighs heavily in favour of ordering that the requested footage be preserved pending final determination of the application. While I am yet to obtain comment from the body corporate, I do not see that any significant harm or inconvenience would result from such an interim order, even if the application is ultimately dismissed. On the other hand, if interim relief is not granted, there is the potential that the footage may be interfered with, resulting in the applicant losing the ability to access the record. In such circumstances, I consider it just and equitable to grant interim relief.

• [18] I am satisfied there are urgent circumstances warranting an interim order.
• [19] Section 279(2)(a) of the Act provides that an interim order has effect for a period (not longer than one year) stated in the order. The applicant has requested that the interim order remain in force for 6 months. While I have granted this period, I anticipate the application will be resolved much sooner than that.
• [20] Finally, I note the applicant has requested that final orders be made on emergency grounds pursuant to section 243A of the Act. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to consider how the application for final orders should be progressed under the Act.

[1] Sections 227(1) and 228(1) of the Act

[6] See for example Dakota at 88 Macquarie Street [2019] QBCCMCmr 530