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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about the administration of the body corporate and committee resolutions.
• [2] The applicant says the body corporate's annual general meeting (AGM) was due by 30 September 2025, but it was not held by that date. Eventually, it was scheduled for 28 November. However, on 26 November the scheduled AGM was cancelled. The applicant claims different reasons were given for the cancellation.
• [3] On 26 November the committee passed numerous resolutions outside a committee meeting, including ratifying the cancellation of the AGM. The applicant indicates concerns with the capacity of one committee member to participate in the voting.
• [4] The communications to owners and the committee resolution said the committee would hold the 2025 AGM by February 2026, but the meeting has not yet been called. On 4 December the applicant submitted a requisition for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), apparently signed by 87 lot owners, but as I understand it that meeting has not yet been called. However, the committee has called an EGM for 15 January 2026 to consider financial motions and the engagement of a body corporate manager (BCM).
• [5] In light of their questions about the participation of committee members and the reasons for the cancellation of the AGM, the applicant seeks an order to invalidate the committee resolutions passed on 26 November. They seek an interim order that the committee not act on the committee resolutions pending the final determination of this application.
• [6] Because an AGM was not held within the required timeframe, the applicant says owners have not had an opportunity to participate in a general meeting, including electing the committee and voting on governance and financial matters. They say budgets have not been approved and levies notices have not been issued, with financial consequences for the body corporate. The applicant seeks an order for an AGM be held. The applicant also seeks an interim order that the committee limit non-essential or discretionary spending until a budget is approved.
• [7] At this time, I will only consider whether interim orders are warranted.

• [8] East Quays community titles scheme 47242 (East Quays) is a 298-lot scheme at Biggera Waters. Under the community management statement (CMS) the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 267478, 269880, 269897, 282610 and 273739.
• [9] The application seeks the following interim orders:
  1. That until the Annual General Meeting ordered by the adjudicator is held, the Body Corporate must not incur or approve any non-essential or discretionary expenditure, including the engagement of legal services or the incurring of legal costs, other than expenditure reasonably necessary to meet essential operational, contractual, and statutory obligations of the scheme.
  2. That pending final determination of this application, the Body Corporate must not take any steps to give effect to, rely upon, or further implement the committee resolutions recorded in the document titled "Minutes of Vote Outside Committee Meeting" dated 26.11.25.
• [10] The application then seeks the following final orders:
  1. That the committee resolutions recorded in the document titled "Minutes of Vote Outside Committee Meeting" dated 26.11.2025 be declared void and of no effect, on the basis that the resolutions were made contrary to the requirements of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Accommodation Module.
  2. That the Body Corporate for East Quays CTS 47242 be ordered to convene and hold an AGM in compliance with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 within 21 days of the adjudicator's order, with proper notice issued and all validly submitted motions included.

• [11] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[1] In particular, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[3]

• [12] This application was lodged on 7 December 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicants on some aspects of the application,[4] which was amended.[5]
• [13] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner then referred this application to me to decide if the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[6] notwithstanding that notice of the application had not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [14] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected persons before an interim order is decided. However, given the circumstances, I issued an invitation to the committee (via the BCM and secretary) giving it a brief opportunity to comment.
• [15] The BCM responded noting they were closed for the holiday period and the committee was on leave. Accordingly, they said it was impractical to distribute the submissions invitation. They further provided the notice of the EGM on 15 January 2026. They expressed the view that the applicant's approach was dismissive of due process, reflects a personal opinion, and is vexatious to the process followed by the committee under legal advice.

• [16] The only issue at this time is whether interim orders are warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [17] Any order granted must be just and equitable. [7] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[8]
• [18] To warrant an interim order, an adjudicator must first be satisfied the application raises serious legal questions to be decided. They must then consider whether the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That means an adjudicator must balance the impact on the respondent and others of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [19] I will comment on the various issues raised by the applicant.

• [20] The regulations require that a body corporate must hold an AGM within 3 months of the financial year end date for this scheme.[9] For East Quays it appears the financial year end date is 30 June. Accordingly, an AGM should be held by 30 September each year.
• [21] The conduct of an AGM each year is fundamental to the proper administration of the body corporate, including financial management, transparency, and accountability. Of course, a body corporate should always endeavour to comply with the legislation. However, from time to time that may not occur. Adjudicators have often accepted that a late AGM will not be invalid simply because of that defect.[10] However, if an AGM has not been held within the required timeframe, a reasonable committee should endeavour to call it as soon as practicable.
• [22] I currently have no information why an AGM was not convened by 30 September 2025. I am also unclear why the scheduled AGM was cancelled, particularly at short notice. Neither is ideal. However, regardless of the reason, those things cannot now be undone.
• [23] The committee says it intends to call the AGM for late February. Particularly when it was able to call an EGM for mid-January, I am unclear why the AGM could not be called sooner. But as soon as the AGM is called, the second final order sought will be rendered otiose.

• [24] The application includes minutes of voting outside a committee meeting on 26 November. These record 12 resolutions, all passed with 6 votes for and nil against. One committee member is recorded as having not voted.
• [25] Motion 2 resolves to ratify a decision via email on 26 November to cancel the AGM scheduled for 28 November and hold the 2025 AGM at the end of February. The other resolutions include ratifying the engagement of solicitors for legal advice about the AGM (Motion 1), engaging solicitors on another matter (Motion 4), engaging contractors for other work (Motions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 111), purchasing a pool storage shed (Motion 9), and extending the strata management agreement (Motion 12).
• [26] The applicant raises a concern that the committee resolutions were not made in accordance with the Act and the Accommodation Module. Although the applicant indicates concern the allegedly differing reasons given for cancelling the AGM, the applicant does not clearly identify how the specific motions or the consideration of the contravened the legislation.
• [27] Although the applicant may disagree with the resolution to ratify the cancellation of the AGM, the applicant does not establish why that was an unreasonable or otherwise invalid decision. And as the AGM has already been cancelled, the utility of invalidating the resolution is unclear.
• [28] The applicant says the committee member who did not vote queried the conduct of the vote, the finalisation of the minutes, and their opportunity to participate. The application includes an email from that committee member to the BCM saying, in response to 26 November minutes, that they thought they had until 5 December to vote. They queried how the minutes were finalised before that date and said they did not expect to receive and have to vote on the same day. They also referred to not being advised of a change of venue for a budget meeting. The applicant indicates that other concerns raised about the budget meeting (apparently held in July). The applicant therefore asserts that on more than one occasion a committee member has been unable to attend or participate in committee meetings.
• [29] The legislation sets out different processes for the conduct of committee meetings and voting outside committee meetings. The supplied minutes indicate the disputed resolutions were passed by voting outside a committee meeting and so I will only note those provisions now.[11]
• [30] A committee can consider a motion outside a committee meeting if notice of the motion is given to all committee members (or in an emergency, as many members as it is practicable to contact).[12] At the same time, notice must be given to lot owners (unless they have asked not to get such notices).[13] The motion must then be confirmed at the next committee meeting.[14]
• [31] Except in an emergency, committee member votes on a motion given outside a committee meeting must be in writing and must usually be given within 21 days of the notice of motion.[15] A motion is decided if the majority of members entitled to vote agree to the motion, or half or more of all members able to vote do not agree.[16] Arguably the body corporate does not need to wait 21 days (or any notified period) to determine the outcome of a motion being decided outside a committee meeting. It would seem that as soon as it has received sufficient votes to decide the motion, either for or against, it can proceed.
• [32] The secretary must give a full and accurate record of motions decided outside a committee meeting to each committee member and each owner (unless they have asked not to receive such records) within 21 days of the motion being decided or being taken not to be agreed to.[17]
• [33] While the applicant appears to suggest some general issue with the participation of committee members, any issue with the conduct of the budget committee meeting does not appear to me to be relevant to the validity of the 26 November resolutions. For the 26 November resolutions, the only identified issue appears to be that the motions were decided before one committee member voted. It is not immediately clear to me, and the application does not explain, why that would invalidate the resolutions. It is evident that sufficient votes were received for the motions to pass and as soon as that occurred the motions were decided. There is no suggestion that the committee member who did not vote did not receive notice of the motions or that their vote would have changed the outcome of the resolutions. The applicant has not otherwise explained how the resolutions did not comply with the Act or regulations.
• [34] At this stage, the applicant has not identified a substantive issue with the 26 November committee motions and voting that would warrant an order to invalidate the resolutions. Accordingly, they have not yet identified a serious legal issue on that point.

• [35] The applicant expresses concern that cancelling the AGM means budgets have not been approved and levy notices have not been issued, but expenses continue to arise, creating financial uncertainty. They say owners have not been told how the body corporate will manage ongoing financial commitments. They say the administrative fund is projected to exhaust by mid-January 2026. So, they say the scheme is at imminent risk of being unable to meet essential operational, contractual, and statutory obligations. For that reason, the applicant wants to limit non-essential or discretionary expenditure pending approval of a budget.
• [36] I acknowledge the concern of the applicant regarding the financial management of the body corporate until budget and levy motions can be passed. However, it is not possible in the context of an interim order to properly assess the financial circumstances of the body corporate or whether there is a genuine risk of the body corporate not meeting its statutory obligations or being in financial difficulty. Moreover, prima facie, the applicant's concerns appear to have been addressed by the motions on the agenda of the EGM scheduled for 15 January.

• [37] The first interim order sought is that the body corporate not incur or approve any non-essential or discretionary expenditure other than that reasonably necessary to meet essential operational, contractual, and statutory obligations. The applicant identifies legal costs and a proposed pool shed as non-essential or discretionary.
• [38] Although the applicant may have genuine concerns about the financial position of the body corporate, on its face those matters may be assisted by the motions at the 15 January EGM, if passed. Given the holiday period, including that the BCM's office is apparently closed until 7 January, it seems unlikely there will be significant spending incurred before that EGM.
• [39] The passing of the EGM motions themselves may not immediately address the issue, as it can take time to raise levies. However, even without the benefit of comment from the body corporate, the applicant has not established that the proposed constraints are appropriate.
• [40] It may be that the committee, acting reasonably,[18] should show spending restraint until the administrative fund is replenished. But the broad and general nature of the order sought by the applicant may be open to differing interpretations and so could potentially cause more conflict rather than quelling dispute. For example, the applicant's views on what expenditure is reasonably necessary to meet its statutory obligations may differ from the committee. If the applicant has genuine concerns with specific resolutions or proposed expenditure, it may be more appropriate to challenge the reasonableness or other validity of that individually.
• [41] The second interim order sought is that the body corporate not take steps to implement the resolutions passed by the committee on 26 November. However, where the applicant has not yet identified any genuine legal issue regarding the validity of those resolutions, there is no basis to make an interim order relating to those resolutions.

• [42] I acknowledge the applicant may have genuine concerns about the delay in holding the 2025 AGM and the consequential administrative impacts on the body corporate. However, at this stage the applicant has not substantiated genuine questions to be determined about the validity of the 26 November committee resolutions or that interim orders about those resolutions are warranted. And while the committee of course should have regard to its current finances when considering spending, the applicant has not satisfied me there is sufficient basis in the current circumstances to warrant interim orders curtailing the committee's expenditure.
• [43] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.
• [44] The applicant may wish to review the application in light of the matters outlined above, the 15 January EGM, any other subsequent events. For its part, arguably the committee should call the AGM promptly. If the application proceeds, I anticipate the Commissioner will seek submissions from the committee and all owners about the final orders before referring the application for final determination.
• [45] Finally, it is beyond the scope of the orders sought in this application to consider the EGM apparently requisitioned by the applicant and other owners, however I will make some brief observations to assist the parties. If a notice signed by the owners of at least 25% of lots in the scheme requesting an EGM to consider motions in the notice has been given to the secretary (as it appears occurred), the EGM should have been called within 14 days and the EGM held within 6 weeks of the date of the notice being given.[19] If the committee reasonably believes the requisition notice is deficient, it should notify the requesting owners of that promptly. If not, it should call the meeting as soon as possible. If a valid notice has been given and the EGM has not been called within 14 days, the owners requesting the EGM can make a written request to another committee member to call the EGM. That other committee member must then call the meeting within 14 days of being given the request.[20] I note that any views on the validity of the requisitioned motions, or the appropriateness or inconvenience of the proposed EGM, are not relevant to the statutory obligation to call a validly requested EGM.

[3] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[9] Section 73 of the Accommodation Module

[10] In doing so, noting Carroll and Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21 and Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Appeal 4080/2000, Bolton J, 29 May 2001)

[11] Section 59 to 62 of the Accommodation Module

[12] Section 60(1) of the Accommodation Module

[13] Section 60(3) of the Accommodation Module

[14] Section 60(5) of the Accommodation Module

[15] Section 61(1) of the Accommodation Module

[16] Section 61(2) of the Accommodation Module

[17] Section 61(3) of the Accommodation Module

[18] Noting section 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[19] Section 74 of the Accommodation Module

[20] Section 75 of the Accommodation Module