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

REASONABLENESS - where the applicant's motion seeking to install an electrical vehicle charger on common property was defeated at general meeting - whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in failing to pass the motion.

Act, s94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, s177, 183

• [1] The applicants are co-owners of Lot 606 at Curve Birtinya. This matter relates to their request to install an electric vehicle charger (EV charger) in the building.
• [2] At an extraordinary general meeting held on 29 August 2024 (EGM), the applicants proposed a motion to install an EV charger to a wall in the building's basement carpark, adjacent to their exclusive use car-space. The motion failed to pass. The applicants have brought this application disputing the body corporate's decision.
• [3] The applicants say the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing to grant approval and seek an order that the proposed installation of the EV charger be approved.
• [4] For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that the body corporate acted unreasonably and have thus declined to make the order sought.

• [5] Curve Birtinya is a community titles scheme comprising 55 lots and common property. The scheme is a multi-storey residential complex, created on 8 October 2021 under Survey Plan 299786. The community management statement (CMS) shows that the scheme is regulated by the Accommodation Module.
• [6] I am satisfied the 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 titles scheme between a lot owner and the body corporate about a claimed contravention of the Act.[2]
• [7] The Commissioner gave notice of the application to the body corporate and invited submissions from the committee and all lot owners in the scheme. The committee along with 10 lot owners made submissions on the application. The applicants inspected the submissions and made a reply. The Commissioner then referred the matter to department adjudication.

• [8] The applicants became owners at Curve Birtinya in February 2024. Since then, the applicants have taken numerous steps to inform owners about their proposal to install an EV charger. The steps taken by the applicants include:
  1. Engaging with the committee and providing a detailed proposal for the committee's consideration;
  2. Making the written EV charger proposal available to all owners;
  3. Attending an owners' forum to present their proposal and address owners' concerns and questions;
  4. Providing a written response to the issues raised at the owners' forum;
  5. Submitting the motion, with agreed conditions, to the EGM of 29 August 2024, where it was ultimately defeated.
• [9] The applicants' EV charger proposal dated June 2024 included the following:
  1. The primary reason for installing the charger is convenience, avoiding the 30-50 minute charging time at public stations. Additionally, having EV charging capabilities enhances the building's future value and appeal.
  2. The applicants' vehicle (BYD Seal) uses a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery, known for safety and robustness. BYD's Blade Battery technology further enhances safety by reducing thermal runaway risks, as demonstrated in rigorous tests.
  3. The applicants propose using Jet Charge ChargeMate hardware, which is capable of 7/22 KW AC charging, and is compliant with the National Measurement Institute standards. This charger will be connected to the building's Dynamic Load Management Statement (DLMS) which is already installed.
  4. The charger is proposed to be installed on the wall adjacent to the applicants' designated car space (C606), closest to the basement carpark entrance for optimal emergency service access.
  5. The applicants have insurance through Allianz, covering EV specific risks, including battery thermal runaway.
  6. The National Construction Code (NCC) now mandates EV charging provisions in apartment buildings, reflecting the growing importance and acceptance of EV infrastructure in strata communities.
• [10] Motion 7 of the EGM reads:

That the body corporate grants the owners of Unit 606, Greg and Debbie Ferguson, permission to install a Jet Charge ChargeMate EV charger on the wall adjacent to their designated car park (C606) directly in front of the basement car park entrance. Permission is granted subject to the attached EV Charging Conditions of Approval.

• [11] The motion was defeated, with 15 votes in favour, 21 votes against, and 2 abstentions.
• [12] The applicants say, given the detailed and balanced information that they provided in support of their motion, the body corporate's decision to refuse approval was, in the circumstances unreasonable.
• [13] Ten owners made submissions in response to the application. Eight oppose the application citing safety (amongst other things) as a major concern. The committee also made a submission opposing the application. I will consider the various objections in further detail below.
• [14] Two owners support the application. They say that the concerns raised by owners were addressed by the applicants and made available to all as part of the ongoing discussion process before the EGM. As the applicants have rationally dealt with owners' concerns, they say the objections to the motion at the EGM, were therefore unreasonable.

• [15] A body corporate is tasked with various functions under the Act. One of these is to administer the common property for the benefit of the lot owners in the scheme.[3] In exercising its functions, the body corporate must act reasonably, including in making or not making a decision.[4] The committee similarly has a duty to act reasonably in making a decision.[5]
• [16] If requested by an owner, the body corporate may authorise an owner to make an improvement to the common property.[6] The improvement must be authorised by ordinary resolution of the body corporate unless -

(b) the improvement does not detract from the appearance of any lot included in, or common property for, the community titles scheme; and

(c) the body corporate is satisfied that use and enjoyment of the improvement is not likely to promote a breach of the owner's duties as an occupier.[7]

• [17] A "minor improvement" means an improvement with an installed value of $3,000 or less.[8]
• [18] Similarly, if an owner has been granted an area of common property for their exclusive use, unless the by-law granting the exclusive use specifically allows for improvements, the owner may only make an improvement to the exclusive use area if the by-law specifically permits it, or if authorised by the body corporate.[9] If the value of the improvement is more than $3,000, the authorisation must be by ordinary resolution.[10]
• [19] Pursuant to Motion 7, the applicants sought body corporate approval to install an EV charger onto a wall adjacent to their exclusive use car-space. It is unclear from the submitted material whether the wall is wholly within the applicants' exclusive use area or whether it remains unallocated common property. It appears the EV charger would be connected to the body corporate's utility infrastructure for the supply of electricity and so may be an improvement to common property in that regard. I note that exclusive use by-law 29 does not authorise the making of any improvements within the allocated area of exclusive use. Therefore, in either case, whether it is an improvement to the exclusive use area, or to unallocated common property, body corporate approval is required.
• [20] The next question then is whether the body corporate's refusal to authorise the improvement is unreasonable.
• [21] If an adjudicator is satisfied that a decision to pass or not pass a motion at a general meeting was unreasonable, an order may be made declaring that a motion was invalid or giving effect to the motion, or improvement as proposed (or a variation of the motion as proposed).[11]
• [22] The test for reasonableness has been subject of considerable case law. What is reasonable is a question of fact, based upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each case.[12] Reasonable action is evidence-based and rational.[13] It considers all relevant factors that have a rational bearing on the issue, and excludes those factors that are irrelevant.[14] A body corporate's decision is not unreasonable simply because it could have made a 'better' or more informed decision.[15] Reasonableness is not whatever the adjudicator considers to be just and equitable; an adjudicator may not simply substitute their own opinion as to what would be a preferable decision.[16] The onus is on the applicant, as the one challenging the decision, to establish that the body corporate acted unreasonably.
• [23] In determining whether the body corporate acted unreasonably, I will consider the committee and owners' main objections against the applicants' proposal. However, before considering their substantive objections, I will consider a couple of preliminary issues regarding the actions of the body corporate prior to the EGM.

• [24] The applicants say the installed value of the EV charger is less than $3,000 and therefore able to be authorised by the committee in accordance with section 177 of the Accommodation Module.[17] The applicants argue that the motion did not need to be submitted to a general meeting, as it was within the purview of the committee to decide the request.

• [25] As outlined above, an improvement must be authorised by ordinary resolution of the body corporate unless: the improvement is a minor improvement (that is, with an installed value of less than $3,000); the improvement does not detract from the appearance of another lot or common property; and the use and enjoyment of the improvement is not likely to promote a breach of the owner's duties as an occupier.[18]
• [26] It would appear then that the installation of the proposed EV charger is an improvement that does not require approval by ordinary resolution; the committee could well have decided the request. However, while the committee has the power to make the decision, it is not obligated to do so. The committee may reasonably decide to defer the question to a general meeting for owners to consider. This is not uncommon where an issue arises that may be novel or contentious for a scheme. In such cases, the committee may consider that while it has power to decide the request, it is better to put the issue to a general meeting for all owners to consider. Understandably in this case, given the concerns that the applicants' proposal was likely to raise and as it was the first request of its kind in this scheme, that is what the committee decided to do. I find no statutory breach in this regard.

• [27] Although not specifically a ground raised in the application, the applicants also mention the conduct of the owners' forum at which they presented their proposal. The applicants say 2 of the attendees who were most vocal in their opposition to the proposal were not owners in the scheme but were children of owners.
• [28] One owner in support of the application asserts that the nature and extent of these 2 persons' objections and negative inputs at the meeting most likely significantly influenced voting outcomes, and that nothing was done by the body corporate to ensure that those in attendance were in fact lot owners.
• [29] In my view, the owners' forum is a practical and helpful way for owners to present their proposals and to address any concerns prior to the relevant motions being voted on at a general meeting. However, as such forums are not official body corporate meetings, their conduct is not dictated by the legislation in the same way that a general meeting or committee meeting might be. Further, there is nothing that leads me to think the body corporate acted unreasonably by allowing non-owners to speak or by failing to refrain them from attending the owners' forum. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that if it were not for these 2 vocal opposing attendees, the applicants' motion at the EGM would have passed.
• [30] I will now move onto considering the committee's and owners' substantive objections to the applicants' motion.

• [31] It is clear from the submissions that fire safety is one of the primary concerns. Several submitters say that there is currently still considerable uncertainty associated with EV batteries. They point to the apparent difficulty in extinguishing EV battery fires and the significant impact this would have in an underground carpark, with over 70 carparks and surrounding utility infrastructure. Owners question the ability of emergency services to access their basement in the case of a fire, and whether there are adequate fire suppression measures in place. Reference is also made to the position taken by Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) that the parking and charging of electric vehicles should be located externally or in open air where possible. Some also cite concerns about the toxic fumes that a lithium battery fire emits.
• [32] The committee submits that the consequences of thermal runaway from lithium batteries used in electric vehicles is far greater than the expected consequences from petrol or diesel vehicles. It says that while the applicants assert that the particular battery used in their proposed electric vehicle reduces thermal runaway risks, they have not shown that thermal runaway risk is eliminated. The committee refers to a position paper published by the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES)[19] which considers that EV charging spaces within a building represent a "special hazard" for firefighters under the National Construction Code Part E1.10 Provision for special hazards. The QFES position paper also states that a thermal runaway event within an EV battery poses significant challenges for firefighters in the management of the incident, with fires in basement carparks considered extremely hazardous to occupants and firefighters. The committee also submits that in the case of a fire, evacuation is difficult as many residents are elderly, and some are disabled.
• [33] I note Appendix R of the application titled "EV Charging Feedback Curve Owners Forum Sunday 14 July 2024" includes the following responses from the applicants:
  1. EV Fire Safe (EVFS) initial research findings, based on global EV battery fires from 2010-2020, indicate a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire;
  2. While it is difficult to find a similar statistic for internal combustion engine passenger vehicles globally, a range of country-based reports found by EVFS suggests there is a 0.1% chance of an internal combustion vehicle catching fire;
  3. EVFS's conclusion is the likelihood of an internal combustion vehicle catching fire is significantly higher than an EV (approximately 80 times more likely);
  4. The building has a fire detection and suppression system installed in the basement. These systems will quickly detect and contain any potential fire, regardless of its source;
  5. Emergency services access is the same for any fire or incident type.
• [34] The applicants further submit that:
  1. The concerns raised stem from misunderstandings about modern EV technology and existing safety measures. The body corporate has not presented any credible, factual opposing information other than the fear of fire, which the applicants say they comprehensively explored in their proposal and subsequent response following the owners' forum.
  2. Any fire in an underground car park can be dangerous and any vehicle fire will emit toxic fumes.
  3. The risk of thermal runaway cannot be eliminated but one cannot eliminate all risk. The relatively low risk has been outlined and is in fact covered by existing body corporate insurance.
  4. In regard to fire evacuation, it is difficult for any fire in any residential building. The applicants note that a real fire alarm situation occurred on 16 January 2025, and all residents were able to evacuate in an orderly manner.
• [35] The charging of electrical motor vehicles in community titles schemes is a relatively recent development. As such, there are very few adjudicators' orders relating to such disputes.
• [36] In one case, the adjudicator had to similarly consider whether the committee acted unreasonably in refusing an owner's request to install an EV charger in his basement carparking space.[20] The adjudicator noted that the committee actively engaged and communicated with the owner applicant, thoroughly reviewed the proposals, commissioned an assessment of the scheme's ability to cope with electric vehicle charging stations, considered the consequences of approving the proposals and was transparent with the owner in explaining why it decided to refuse approval. The adjudicator concluded that she was not satisfied on the material presented that the committee failed to act reasonably in refusing to authorise the proposed improvement.[21]
• [37] In another decision where an owner disputed the committee's decision to install an EV charger in the basement, the adjudicator noted the applicant raised fire safety concerns but did not provide any evidence that it is not possible for EV chargers to be safely located in the basement of residential buildings or specifically that where it had been installed in that particular building is unsafe.[22] In considering the test for reasonableness, the adjudicator commented that it is not for an adjudicator to supplant the body corporate's decision-making role or to impose their own views on the body corporate. Rather a decision should only be set aside if an adjudicator is satisfied the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable body corporate could have come to it, or it is 'conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust'.[23]
• [38] In the current matter, the body corporate has concerns about whether it is safe for electric vehicles to be charged in their underground carpark. Owners have presented material that they relied upon to form this view. There is no suggestion that the information relied upon was false or irrelevant to the applicants' proposal. Some submissions refer to the position put forward by FRNSW which considers incidents involving EVs and EV infrastructure to currently be of "low frequency", but with "potentially high consequence", and says that such incidents require enhanced fire safety measures to be in place to facilitate safe and effective fire brigade operations. [24] I also note the FRNSW recommend that EV parking and charging be located externally or in open air where possible.[25] One owner says they are aware that some bodies corporate have moved forward by installing communal EV chargers at ground level. The submissions say there is the need to properly address potential major impacts if a thermal runaway fire were to occur, as such a fire could potentially affect the structural integrity of the building. It is submitted that these factors and concerns have not been adequately addressed by the applicants. One owner submits that the building should be assessed by a fire safety specialist to provide a comprehensive report, and says this advice is necessary since they are a building complex, which is a high risk environment. I note the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) makes a number of recommendations to support safer EV charging. One of these is that complex buildings and higher-risk environments should seek comprehensive, specialist fire safety assessment and advice.
• [39] While some aspects of owners' concerns may be based on misconceptions about EV technology, I do not consider that the objections are entirely unfounded. Although instances of EV battery fires may be few and far between, it at least appears accepted that the consequences from such an event are high and require considered fire safety measures. Though the applicants may take a different view, they have not persuaded me that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to refuse their proposal on account of such concerns.
• [40] I will now go on to consider the other factors that appear to have played some part in the body corporate's decision.

• [41] The applicants say the building has been specifically built to safely allow for EV charging with the installation of a Dynamic Load Management System and basement ceiling gantries to all owners' car parks.
• [42] The committee says while there is electrical infrastructure in place to enable EV charging, it is unclear if other structural requirements are in place to support EV charging in the underground carpark. The committee says the developer is in administration and that there are many building defects. It notes some "cheap options" were taken by the builder and that it would be unlikely that the heavy construction costs associated with thicker basement walls, suspended slab and columns to support the higher fire rating required for EV charging in the underground garage occurred. The committee submits that an engineering report would be needed to certify the associated building infrastructure and to support the higher fire rating required.
• [43] The applicants say the builder being in administration is irrelevant. They question what other "structural requirements" and "higher fire rating" are required and by what authority. The applicants say the committee has not previously expressed a need for an engineer's report and in their view this is unnecessary.
• [44] It is unclear to me what concerns the committee holds regarding the adequacy of the building's infrastructure to enable EV charging. In the absence of any cogent argument and evidence suggesting the need for additional structural requirements, I am of the view that the objection to the applicants' proposal on this basis is unreasonable.

Charging of other electric battery powered vehicles and the need for a by-law

• [45] The applicants say there is no prohibition in the scheme against the charging of other lithium battery-powered vehicles such as electric bikes, scooters and mobility scooters. One owner in support of the application says the failure of the applicants' motion discriminates against the applicants and other owners who wish to purchase an electric vehicle and charge it on the premises, in favour of those who own other electric vehicles (like bicycles and scooters), permitting them to continue charging them on the premises, despite the far greater risks involved with such devices.
• [46] The committee acknowledges that there is no by-law that currently prohibits the charging of alternative battery powered mobility devices and says there is a need for one to govern charging of devices on common property should owners consent to such a use of common property. Owners also agree that a relevant by-law should be developed to address EV charging in the building and believe such a by-law is essential before the body corporate approves any application.
• [47] In investigating the application, I requested the committee to advise whether it is aware of any electric vehicles being charged in the building (including e-bikes and scooters). The committee says it is unaware of any electric vehicles being charged on common property but understands there are some residents who charge their electric batteries within their own lots. The committee also detailed instances in the past where e-bike batteries, an e-mobility device (wheelchair) and a car battery were being charged in the basement carpark using common property power. On each occasion, the committee says it took immediate action to explain to the resident involved that this is not permitted. The committee says those residents have not continued to charge their batteries on common property.
• [48] While there appears to have been some instances of residents charging their electric batteries within the basement carpark, this does not mean that the body corporate, acting reasonably, must therefore approve the applicants' proposal to install an EV charger. The body corporate has not authorised the use of common property for this purpose. Rather, I accept that the body corporate has adopted a consistent approach in ensuring there is no charging of electric batteries in the basement, whether for an electric motor vehicle, bicycle or otherwise.

• [49] The applicants say there is no body corporate investment required for their proposed installation. They say that their charger would be connected to the building's common power. As the EV charger users, they would be billed directly by the billing software company (Chargefox) who would in turn automatically reimburse the body corporate at monthly or quarterly intervals.
• [50] The committee says the cost of ongoing common property infrastructure maintenance is unknown, as is the administrative costs to manage the 'charge back' system to recover the cost of use of common property power. The committee also says costs would be involved to amend the CMS to include a relevant EV charging by-law.
• [51] In their documented response following the owners' forum, the applicants explained that all initial installation costs as well as the ongoing maintenance and compliance costs would be borne by them as the owners. I note the conditions of approval also state that all costs relating to installation and maintenance of the charger outlet and related infrastructure are to be borne by the owner.
• [52] While the body corporate speculates that there may be ongoing costs, it is not clear what these costs specifically relate to and the extent of any such potential costs. If, as submitted by one owner, there will be associated costs to make the basement fire safe, for example by installing extra signage, fire suppression measures and evacuation plans, those are matters for the body corporate to consider. If such improvements are required to the building, it would not seem unreasonable for the body corporate to bear such costs, or it may be that the applicant owners are willing to bear some of that cost where warranted. In any case, I do not consider such speculative and undefined costs to be a reasonable basis for objecting to the applicants' proposal.

• [53] Some owners say that the introduction of EV charging in the building may result in increased insurance premiums, difficulties finding companies that are willing to provide insurance, and introduction of onerous conditions from insurance providers. However, I note these concerns are of a general and hypothetical nature. There is no suggestion that the installation of an EV charger as proposed by the applicants would impact the body corporate's current policy. The applicants have explained to owners that EV charging is not an exclusion under the body corporate's current policy. Further, I note it is a condition of approval that:
  1. If the body corporate's insurance provider introduces exclusion of EV charging, all chargers are to be decommissioned, unless the matter is otherwise addressed by the body corporate; and
  2. If the body corporate's insurance cost is increased specifically due to EV charging, for example, as a result of an EV-related claim, the increase is divided amongst existing EV owners who use a charger outlet in the building.
• [54] In these circumstances and given the proposed conditions, I do not consider the broad concern that there may be insurance complications to be a relevant factor in deciding whether or not to approve the EV charger.

• [55] Some owners as well as the committee suggest that the charging of electric vehicles in residential buildings is a convenience and not a necessity. They liken this to owners of petrol or diesel vehicles who must routinely refuel their vehicles at petrol stations, rather than having the convenience of doing so in the building's carpark. Further, they say it will become increasingly convenient for EV owners to access public charging stations as more are being developed.
• [56] The applicants say that having charging facilities within the building enhances convenience without compromising safety when installed correctly. Further, the applicants say that charging an EV at a public station cannot be likened to refuelling an internal combustion engine vehicle. They say that the latter can be completed in less than 5 minutes whereas charging an EV can take anywhere from 40 minutes to many hours depending on the charging station's capability and capacity.
• [57] In my view, while not a compelling reason for refusing the applicants' proposal, it was not unreasonable for the body corporate to consider the availability of public charging stations in making its decision.

• [58] The applicants have built a strong case for the installation of an EV charger in their basement car space. They argue that Curve Birtinya is "EV ready", having the appropriate infrastructure in place to enable multiple EVs to be charged efficiently in the building. They explain that the battery used in their vehicle is premium in its design and safety technology. The charger would be connected to the building's common power with the use of a convenient billing system. The applicants provided evidence to owners that the risk of EV fires is relatively low when compared with petrol or diesel powered vehicles. These are all sound arguments in support of the applicants' request to install an EV charger for their personal use.
• [59] However, the body corporate has also presented rational arguments as to why they have not agreed to the applicants' proposal, with safety being owners' primary concern. In determining the application, it is not for me as the adjudicator to substitute my own view as to what I consider the more preferable outcome to be. The question is simply whether the body corporate fulfilled its legislative obligation to act reasonably when considering the applicants' proposed improvement. The onus is on the applicants to establish that the body corporate failed to do so. In this instance, I am not satisfied the applicants have discharged this onus. While some factors such as the potential for insurance and financial implications are speculative, on the whole taking into account all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied the body corporate acted unreasonably.
• [60] However, my dismissal of this application should not be interpreted to mean that Curve Birtinya has a "no EV charging" policy. Owners can still seek body corporate approval to use or install chargers on common property, and each request for approval must be decided on its own merits. The dismissal of this application also does not prevent the applicants from submitting a further motion for the body corporate's consideration. While it may not be a necessity, I note one owner's suggestion that an assessment of the building be conducted by a fire safety specialist as per ABCB's recommendation. It may be that with the passage of time and further steps taken to ensure that adequate fire safety measures are in place for the building, the body corporate may take a different view. Arguably, in those circumstances, having obtained relevant fire safety advice specific to the building, it may be unreasonable for the body corporate to refuse approval.

[6] Section 177(1) of the Accommodation Module

[7] Section 177(2) of the Accommodation Module

[8] Section 177(5) of the Accommodation Module

[9] Section 183(1) & (3) of the Accommodation Module

[10] Section 183(4) of the Accommodation Module

[11] See for example Items 17 & 24 in Schedule 5 of the Act

[12] Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49 at 59; Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342 at 51

[13] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 (Beaches) at 23 citing SZLGP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1198 at 15-16

[14] Beaches at 42, citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45

[15] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311

[16] Ainsworth & Ors v Albrecht & Anor [2016] HCA 40 at 101

[17] Section 177 is the applicable provision under the Accommodation Module. The applicants refer to section 187 which is the equivalent provision found in the Standard Module.

[18] Section 177(2) of the Accommodation Module

[19] QFES is now known as the Queensland Fire Department

[20] The Duporth Riverside [2023] QBCCMCmr 494

[22] Golden Sands Highrise [2025] QBCCMCmr 11 at 41

[23] Ibid at 27 citing Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 34, 74 and 98

[24] "Electric vehicles (EV) and EV charging equipment" FRNSW Position statement summary (effective 4 June 2024),

[25] The position paper also goes on to say that if EV parking and charging is located internal to a building, the carparking area should be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system with a performance equivalent to a system complying with AS 2118.1 or AS 2118.6.