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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER - where the applicant is challenging motions passed at the scheme's annual general meeting authorising repair works - where the applicant seeks an order to suspend implementation of the motions - whether the interim order sought by the applicant is warranted in the circumstances.

Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 270; Accommodation Module, s 170

1. The application for an interim order is dismissed.

• [1] Emerald Lakes - The Village Residential CTS 37497 (The Village Residential) is a 170-lot scheme situated in Carrara, Queensland. It is governed by the Accommodation Module. The applicant, Ian Hogan, is the joint owner of Lot 3309 in the scheme.
• [2] I understand the scheme buildings of The Village Residential have been affected by ongoing water ingress issues. The applicant says the body corporate engaged a specialist engineering firm, Structural Waterproof Consulting (SWC), to provide a report on the issues. The report from SWC[1] identified several critical defects in the scheme's buildings. It recommended specific repairs to address the various issues.
• [3] The applicant says that instead of proceeding with the repairs recommended by SWC, the body corporate committee engaged a carpenter working as a sole trader to carry out a raft of piecemeal repairs. The applicant says the repairs carried out by this contractor need to be reviewed by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) and qualified waterproofing engineers.
• [4] In addition, the applicant says the body corporate wants to engage Building Rectification Services (BRS) to carry out other remediation works at the scheme. However, the warranty for this work does not cover pre-existing structural faults. He says this indicates the proposed repair works are not designed to rectify the underlying faults identified by SWC.
• [5] The applicant seeks the following final orders:

The body corporate is ordered not to implement or commence any works approved under Motions 27, 28, and 29 passed at the Annual General Meeting on 2 July 2025.

2. Independent Engineering Assessment and Remediation Plan

Within 21 days of this order, the body corporate must engage SW Consult [SWC], or another suitably qualified and QBCC licensed structural waterproofing engineering firm, to:

(a) Conduct comprehensive testing and assessment of the approximately $360,000 of rectification and remediation works carried out by [Mr S][2] (QBCC licensed trade contractor - Carpentry), which were completed without written contracts and without independent engineering oversight, testing, or certification;

(b) Provide a detailed written report to the body corporate identifying: - The adequacy and compliance of completed works with structural waterproofing standards; - Any deficiencies or non-conforming work requiring rectification; - A comprehensive scope of works required to restore the structural waterproofing integrity of the buildings to a sound and compliant condition consistent with the body corporate's obligations under section 170 of the Accommodation Module;

(c) Prepare tender specifications for the required remediation works and oversee a competitive tender process to obtain at least two fully priced proposals from appropriately qualified and licensed contractors;

(d) Present the engineering report and alternative tender proposals to lot owners at an Extraordinary General Meeting, at which meeting a motion to formally rescind Motions 27, 28, and 29 from the 2025 AGM will also be considered.

Within 21 days of this order, the body corporate must formally request the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to investigate the works performed by [Mr S] for compliance with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 and associated regulations, including but not limited to the written contract requirements under section 67G of the QBCC Act 1991, scope of license compliance, and warranty provisions.

Within 7 days of receiving the waterproofing assessment report required under Order 2, the body corporate must:

(a) Provide a complete copy to the body corporate's insurance broker with full disclosure of all material findings; and

(b) Upload the complete report to the StrataMax portal with read access enabled for all lot owners and their authorised representatives.

Within 7 days of receiving the QBCC investigation report or findings required under Order 3, the body corporate must:

(a) Provide a complete copy to the body corporate's insurance broker with full disclosure of all material findings; and

(b) Upload the complete report to the StrataMax portal with read access enabled for all lot owners and their authorised representatives.

6. Mandatory Document Disclosure and Records Access

Within 14 days of this order, the body corporate must upload the following documents to the StrataMax portal with read access enabled for all lot owners and their authorised representatives:

(a) All quality assurance reports, test reports, and certification documents that have been provided to the insurance broker in relation to building works and structural waterproofing;

(b) All correspondence with the insurance broker regarding the status of rectification of the structural waterproofing defects identified in the 2023 SW Consult [SWC] report, including any correspondence regarding policy coverage, claims, or disclosure obligations;

(c) The complete Commercial Master Builders contracts (or any other executed contracts) for works performed by: - BRS Pty Ltd - [Mr S] - PM Concepts Pty Ltd, and the additional 18 documents sent to the insurer, all of which were referenced in item 2.2 of the Minutes of the Formal Committee Meeting held on 10 September 2025.

7. Retraction of Misleading Statements Regarding Building Condition

The body corporate must, within 14 days of this order, issue a formal retraction and correction of any statements made in body corporate records, minutes, newsletters, or correspondence asserting or implying that the buildings "cannot be made waterproof" or cannot achieve adequate structural waterproofing integrity. The retraction must:

(a) Acknowledge that such statements are inconsistent with the body corporate's statutory obligations under section 170 of the Accommodation Module to maintain common property in structurally sound condition;

(a) Confirm the body corporate's commitment to achieving full structural waterproofing integrity in accordance with engineering specifications and statutory requirements; and

(b) Be circulated to all lot owners and uploaded to the StrataMax portal.

8. Retraction of Defamatory Characterisations of Lot Owners

The body corporate must, within 14 days of this order, issue a formal retraction of statements made in body corporate records characterising lot owners who have raised questions about building works, requested transparency, or sought verification of insurance disclosure as "disgruntled owners" or as acting to harm the body corporate. The retraction must:

(a) Acknowledge that lot owners raising legitimate questions about compliance with statutory obligations and fiduciary duties are exercising their rights under the BCCM Act and Accommodation Module;

(b) Acknowledge that such characterisations are inconsistent with the body corporate's obligation under section 94 to act reasonably, fairly, and in the interests of all lot owners; and

(c) Be circulated to all lot owners and uploaded to the StrataMax portal.

9. Prohibition on Defamatory and Derogatory Communications

The body corporate and its committee members are ordered to immediately cease and refrain from issuing any communications, including but not limited to committee emails, newsletters, minutes, or correspondence, that contain derogatory, defamatory, or disparaging assertions against lot owners based on those lot owners holding or expressing views different from the committee's position, including views on:

(a) The adequacy or appropriateness of building works; (b) Compliance with statutory maintenance obligations; (c) Transparency and access to body corporate records; (d) Insurance disclosure obligations; or (e) Financial management and expenditure decisions.

This order does not prevent the body corporate from engaging in respectful debate or presenting factual information supporting committee decisions, but prohibits ad hominem attacks, defamatory characterisations, or communications designed to intimidate or discourage lot owners from exercising their statutory rights.

• [6] The applicant is also concerned about further repair works which have been authorised under Motions 27, 28 and 29 passed at the scheme's 2025 annual general meeting (2025 AGM). He says these works lack the necessary engineering oversight to ensure compliance with the body corporate's statutory obligations under section 170 of the Accommodation Module. He seeks the following interim order:

Suspend implementation of building works approved under Motions 27, 28, and 29 at the AGM on 2 July 2025, which have not yet commenced, pending final determination of this application.

• [7] This is my consideration of the applicant's request for an interim order. The applicant bears the onus to establish that the interim order he seeks is warranted in the circumstances.

• [8] The applicant lodged this application for adjudication on 7 October 2025. The commissioner sought clarification on some aspects of the application and the application was amended.
• [9] The commissioner referred the interim order request to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [10] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comments from a respondent or affected parties before an interim order is decided. However, in the circumstances of this case, interim submissions were invited from the body corporate committee and it made interim submissions on the dispute.
• [11] I have reviewed and considered all the submissions and materials submitted on this dispute before coming to my decision on the applicant's request for an interim order.
• [12] For completeness, I note section 242(1) of the Act sets a time limit for an order declaring void a resolution of a body corporate, that being the application must be made within 3 months of the general meeting where the motion was passed. However, the Act also provides that an adjudicator may, for good reason, waive the non-compliance with the time limit for making an application.[3]
• [13] For the purposes of this interim order application, I have proceeded as if there is good reason to waive non-compliance with the applicable time limit. However, the time limit will be a live issue where the applicant's application for final orders is considered.

• [14] An adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the order sought is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[4]
• [15] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted in the circumstances, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interim injunction applications.[5] Accordingly, to determine if it is just and equitable to make the interim order sought by the applicant, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute, the nature and urgency of the matter, as well as the balance of convenience between the parties. I will explain each consideration in more detail below.
• [16] Firstly, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute and be satisfied there is a serious legal question to be answered. At this stage, the applicant does not need to satisfy me that, on the balance of probabilities, his legal position is the correct one to take in the case. However, I must be satisfied the applicant's case has a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the making of the interim order sought prior to a full investigation into the matter being concluded.
• [17] Secondly, an adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[6] The applicant must therefore establish that the circumstances warrant the interim order she has sought. This may be where, for example, the order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm from taking place or to stop something that cannot be undone. I must also balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused, against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted.

• [18] The applicant is seeking an interim order restraining the body corporate from taking any steps to implement the repair works authorised under Motions 27, 28 and 29 passed at the scheme's 2025 AGM.[7]
• [19] Motion 27 was a group of same issue-motions. Motion 27a passed with 48 votes in favour and 2 votes against (2 votes were noted as invalid). Motion 27a read as follows:

27.a. BELLA VUE ROOF & FACADE REPAIRS INCLUDING APARTMENT 3111, 3112, 3113 & 3115 INTERNAL REPAIRS BY BRS (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

That the Body Corporate engage Building Rectification Services Contracting Pty Ltd (BRS) to complete repairs to the Bella Vue rooftop, facade and internal repairs to apartments 3111, 3112, 3113, & 3115 as per quotation 15569d (enclosed) at a total cost of $85,910.00 including GST, plus a contingency of 10%, being a total of up to $94,501.00 including GST.

And further that, the costs be paid from the existing Sinking Fund balance.

• [20] Motion 28 was also a group of same-issue motions. Motion 28a passed with 48 votes in favour and 2 votes against (2 votes were noted as invalid). Motion 28a read as follows:

28.a. BELLA VUE FACADE AND INTERIOR REPAIRS TO BELLA VUE APARTMENTS BY BRS (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

That the Body Corporate engage Building Rectification Services Contracting Pty

Ltd (BRS) to complete repairs to the Bella Vue apartments 3041, 3051, 3063, 3071,

3081, 3085, 3088, 3091, 3092, 3093 and 3094 as per quotation 15568b (enclosed)

at a total cost of $164,010.00 including GST, plus a contingency of 10%, being a

And further that, the costs be paid from the existing Sinking Fund balance.

• [21] Lastly, Motion 29 was also a group of same-issue motions. Motion 29b passed with 46 votes in favour and 3 votes against (1 vote was noted as abstain and 2 votes were noted as invalid). Motion 29b read as follows:

29.b. PORTO BELLAGO BUILDING REPAIRS BY [Mr S] (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

That the Body Corporate engage [Mr S] to complete repairs in

Porto Bellago to apartments 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44, 60, 69, 73, 74 and B1,

Level 1 Hallway and B1 & Level 3 Hallway as per various enclosed quotations at a

total cost of $116,720.31 including GST, plus a contingency of 10%, being a total

And further that, the costs be paid from the existing Sinking Fund balance.

• [22] Section 152 of the Act sets out a body corporate's duties about common property. It provides that the body corporate must administer, manage and control the common property reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners; and comply with the obligations with regard to common property imposed under the regulation module applying to the scheme.
• [23] As set out above, The Village Residential is governed by the Accommodation Module. Section 170(1) of the Accommodation Module provides that the body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition. And, to the extent that lots included in the scheme are created under a building format plan, the body corporate must maintain in good condition: (1) railings, parapets and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property( 2) doors, windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall separating the lot from common property and (3) roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property.[7]
• [24] The statutory duty to maintain common property has been considered extensively by the courts.[8] It is clear from the case law that a body corporate has a duty to maintain common property in good condition and that it must do so as soon as any of the building parts covered by the duty fall into disrepair.[9] Failure to do so once aware of an issue would give rise to a breach of the body corporate's maintenance obligations.
• [25] In addition, section 94 of the Act sets out a body corporate's general functions. Section 94(2) provides that a body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions, including making, or not making, a decision. A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate,[10] and a committee acting on behalf of a body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision.[11]
• [26] Numerous judicial decisions have considered the test for reasonableness. The cases emphasise that what is reasonable is a question of fact for the decision-maker to determine, and what is required is a careful weighing up of all the relevant factors while not taking irrelevant factors into account.[12] Ultimately, the question is not whether a decision was the 'correct' one or whether a better one could have been made. Rather, it is about whether the decision was objectively reasonable.[13] The common thread that runs through the case law is that a decision-maker must take into account all the circumstances of the case.

Consideration of legal issues and likelihood of success

• [27] The applicant says the body corporate committee rejects the notion that the body corporate has an obligation to ensure the scheme's buildings are watertight. He says the committee has abandoned the works recommended by SWC which were designed to rectify the structural waterproofing issues affecting the scheme. He says instead, the committee has been authorising a carpenter to carry out piecemeal works to patch over the defects.
• [28] In its response to the application, the body corporate acknowledges the SWC report identified major defects which are allowing water penetration into internal areas of the scheme buildings. The committee explains that at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 22 November 2023, the body corporate resolved to engage a contractor to carry out the first part of the works recommended by SWC, with SWC providing contract management services for the project. However, it subsequently came to light that part of the repair works which had purportedly been authorised related to areas of the buildings which are part of a different CTS. Accordingly, the committee says it had to reformulate a rectification proposal which related only to the scheme property of The Village Residential.
• [29] The committee acknowledges it has engaged a carpenter to carry out urgent repair works around the scheme. Then, at an EGM held on 16 April 2025, it says the body corporate resolved to engage BRS to carry out repairs of the façades and painting works on two of the scheme's buildings. However, it maintains the body corporate has taken a measured and methodical approach to addressing the water ingress issues.
• [30] I note the applicant's submissions that the committee has taken the position that the scheme's buildings cannot be made watertight. However, I was unable to find this statement in the materials provide by the applicant. In any event, having reviewed the evidence submitted by both the applicant and the committee, I have come to the preliminary view that the body corporate has been taking steps to address the water ingress issues. It seems to me it is only the appropriateness of the repairs being carried out to remedy the defects which are in dispute.[1]
• [31] Accordingly, I consider the key question for me to consider is whether the body corporate - and its committee - have acted reasonably in making decisions about how to address the water ingress issues affecting the scheme and what repairs should be carried out. For the purposes of this interim order, I have focussed on whether the body corporate acted reasonably in making the decision to authorise the works proposed under Motions 27a, 28a and 29b.
• [32] The applicant says it is evident that the works authorised under the disputed motions will not achieve the required outcome of making the scheme buildings watertight. He says some of the repairs which will be carried out under the motions may require undoing and redoing to properly rectify the structural waterproofing defects. He says in proceeding with these works, the body corporate is not acting reasonably.
• [33] The body corporate says the applicant's submissions in this regard are demonstratable wrong in reference to his own materials. It says the applicant has provided a litany of documents including minutes of general and committee meetings and numerous updates to lot owners which show the body corporate and committee have undertaken a considered approach to addressing the water leaks at the scheme. It says despite the applicant providing nearly 700 pages of documents, there is no evidence that the works authorised by the disputed motions would be non-compliant.
• [34] The committee notes that both BRS and Mr S are licenced contractors. It further states that the works carried out to date have been checked and reported on by another open-licenced builder, PM Concepts Pty Ltd (PM Concepts), who has reported no problems with the repairs. In addition, it says due to the water ingress issues, the scheme's insurer indicated that if steps were not taken to address the issues, it would no longer be willing to provide insurance. The committee says the repairs carried out to date by BRS and Mr S have satisfied the scheme's insurer that the issues are being addressed and the insurer has extended the body corporate's insurance coverage.
• [35] I have reviewed the report from SWC and the quotes for the works authorised under Motion 27a, 28a and 29b. The SWC report states that extensive remedial works are required to reinstate the waterproofness of each of the scheme's buildings. SWC noted four major defects and provided the following recommendations to address the issues, namely:
  1. Replace windows and balcony doors where it has been identified that poor construction and installation of these items is allowing water penetration internally.
  2. Replace cavity flashing where leaks have been reported internally.
  3. Treat failed façade joints and complete a full building repaint.
  4. Install drip trays below podium expansion joints where the waterproofing has failed.[14]
• [36] SWC further recommended completing the repairs on each of the scheme's building one at a time to allow for gaining a further understanding of uncovered defects during the works. It suggested the smallest scheme building with the least issues be attended to first and it noted that the lessons learned from that project could be applied in repairing the other buildings.
• [37] The applicant says the body corporate has departed from the recommendations made by SWC and that this is unreasonable. While I acknowledge the body corporate does not appear to be following the specific recommendations made by SWC, this does not in itself make the body corporate's decision to pass the disputed motions unreasonable. While the applicant argues that the works authorised under Motions 27a, 28a and 29b will not achieve compliance with the body corporate's maintenance obligations, he has provided no evidence which establishes this. I further note that the scheme's insurer appears to be satisfied with the repairs which have been carried out by BRS and Mr S to date and has increased the insurance term being offered to the body corporate from 3 to 6 months.[15]
• [38] The applicant argues that the authorised repair works are being completed without engineering oversight, testing or certification. However, he has provided no evidence that an engineer is required to supervise or 'sign-off' these works. I understand the body corporate has engaged an open-licenced builder, PM Concepts, to provide oversight and quality assurance for the repair works. I note PM Concepts is aware of the SWC report and the defects it identified. Based on the materials currently before me, the applicant has not yet persuaded me that supervision of an engineer is essential for carrying out the repairs.
• [39] The applicant also argues that the repair works are being carried out without written contracts. However, the body corporate has provided copies of the written quotes from BRS and acceptance in writing of the same. It also appears that Mr S provided written quotes via a software link and the body corporate has provided copies of the written acceptance of the same. I am not yet satisfied there is any merit to this argument.
• [40] The applicant also raises concerns about the qualifications of Mr S and his suitability to carry out the repair works. However, he has provided no evidence that Mr S is unable to carry out the works authorised under Motion 29b. I note the applicant says Mr S is a licenced carpenter operating as a sole trader with a maximum revenue capacity of up to $800k. He says engaging Mr S seems a risky choice where the scheme buildings are insured for $158M. However, this does not establish that Mr S is unable to carry out the repairs.
• [41] I note the committee have indicated that Mr S explained he had voluntarily attended a meeting with QBCC where he was questioned about the works he was carrying out at The Village Residential. It appears QBCC was satisfied that the works Mr S had been carrying out at the scheme fell under the licence he held, including being allowed to carry out maintenance works on all types of roofing.[16] The applicant has provided no evidence from QBCC which establishes that Mr S would be working outside the parameters of his QBCC licence in carrying out the works authorised under Motion 29b.
• [42] I understand the applicant is concerned about the repair works and strongly disagrees with the way the water ingress issues are being addressed. However, I note it is not an adjudicator's role to decide whether a decision of a body corporate is 'correct' or the 'best' decision that could be made. In order to be successful in this application, the applicant must show that the decision made by the body corporate is objectively unreasonable. At this stage, the applicant has not yet met that burden.

• [43] The body corporate submits that the applicant's application is misconceived and entirely without substance. It requests that the application be dismissed in its entirety and an order for costs of $2,000 be made in favour of the body corporate to partially compensate it for the costs it has incurred in responding to the application. It says the applicant's arguments were simply destined to fail.
• [44] Section 270(1)(c) of the Act provides that the adjudicator may make an order dismissing the application if it appears to the adjudicator that the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. And, if an adjudicator makes an order under section 270(1)(c), they may award costs against the applicant to compensate the respondent to a maximum of $2,000.
• [45] For the reasons provided above, the applicant has failed to persuade me that there is a serious legal question to be answered in relation to any of the grounds he has raised. I have therefore given careful consideration to whether I should dismiss this application on the basis that it is misconceived and without substance. I note an adjudicator has discretion as to whether or not to dismiss an application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act. At this stage, I decline to exercise my discretion to dismiss it. However, the applicant may wish to carefully review his final application as this issue may be reconsidered in the context of final orders.

• [46] The dispute will now be referred back to the commissioner to progress under the Act.[17]

[2] Given the circumstances and submissions made by the applicant, I considered it appropriate to anonymise this contractor's name and have done so throughout this decision.

[5] For general principles see: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[7] Section 170(2)(a) of the Accommodation Module

[8] See Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300, Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70, Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owner's Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC 1157

[9] In fact, the body corporate ought to carry out proactive maintenance works to prevent defects from arising where possible.

[12] Luadaka v Body Corporate for The Cover of Emerald Lakes [2013] QCATA 183 applying Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311; Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342; Body Corporate for the Reserve v Trojan resorts Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 53 (2 May 2017)

[13] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311

[14] SWC notes this defect, while still major, is not a priority given that the other defects are allowing water ingress into habitable areas.

[15] Item 2 of committee meeting dated 5 February 2025.

[16] Minutes of committee meeting dated 10 September 2025.