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

INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances; EMERGENCY SPENDING

Act, s 279; Standard Module ss 172(1)(c) and 172(1)(d)

1. Interim Order 1: Within 48 hours, to comply with Energex Defect Report No. 813402 dated 8 July 2025 and in order to rectify the serious identified defects in the electrical infrastructure, I require the committee and authorise it pursuant to section 172(1)(c) of the Standard Module to spend body corporate funds to engage a qualified, registered, and insured electrician to:

(a) secure access to the switchboard, and

(b) perform works necessary to ensure the height of the mains electrical lines in the vicinity of the staircases and balconies complies with the applicable regulations.

1. Interim Order 2: The Body Corporate for Everglades must:

(a) within 7 days, have a qualified, registered, and insured electrician inspect the common property electrical switchboard, provide a report on its condition and risks posed, recommend works necessary to comply with current safety standards, and provide a quote for the recommended works

(b) within 14 days of the order, providing the body corporate has sufficient funds, pursuant to section 172(1)(d) of the Standard Module, the committee is authorised to and must, engage a qualified, registered, and insured electrician to undertake the recommended works to the switchboard, and

(c) if the body corporate does not have sufficient funds to undertake the recommended safety works to the switchboard, the body corporate may request that this interim order be varied to extend the time to comply with the above interim order and/or any owner may apply for the appointment of an administrator to assist with the enforcement of Interim Order 2.

1. Interim Order 3: the Body Corporate for Everglades must:

(a) within 7 days, have a suitably qualified and licensed professional inspect on the structural integrity of the staircase to Lot 7, including the condition of the plates, stringers, and its attachment to the building, and provide a report with recommendations for works required to "make safe" the staircase

(b) at the same time and also within 7 days, obtain a quote for the works necessary to "make safe" the staircase, and

(c) within 14 days of the order, providing the body corporate has sufficient funds, pursuant to section 172(1)(d) of the Standard Module, the committee is authorised to and must, engage the contractor to undertake the make safe works to the staircase.

1. Interim Order 4: The Body Corporate for Everglades must not take, nor authorise others to take on its behalf, any action to implement or enforce any of the resolutions for Motions 14, 16, 17 or 18 purportedly passed at its annual general meeting held on or about 6 August 2025. This Interim Order 4 shall have effect until the earlier of: the issue by an adjudicator of a further interim or final order for the application, the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended, or 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order.
2. Interim Order 5: I am expressly retaining jurisdiction and reserving, pending further investigation, my decision on the applicant's request for interim orders about the administration of the body corporate.

• [1] This application is about a scheme developed and registered in the 1970s. There are 7 lots in the scheme, with 4 having common ownership and control (Majority Owner). This leaves the owners of the remaining 3 lots in the minority.
• [2] In August 2025, the body corporate held its annual general meeting (AGM) at which owners considered 19 motions and elected a committee. The minutes show the body corporate failed to pass certain statutory motions, including for its administrative and sinking fund budgets and associated contributions. One person, a representative of the Majority Owner was elected to the positions of chairperson, secretary, and treasurer.
• [3] The applicant challenges the body corporate's decisions about 5 of the motions decided by the body corporate at its AGM and seeks interim orders to stop it from taking steps to implement those decisions. The applicant also raises health and safety concerns about the electrical switchboard. He provides a defect notice from Energex and a report from an electrician to demonstrate that it is defective and poses a high risk of both fire and electrocution. The applicant also says the stairs which provide the only access to his unit are in severe disrepair and are also a risk to health and safety. He says "make safe" repairs to both are urgent and he seeks interim orders that the body corporate urgently complete such works.
• [4] Finally, the applicant raises serious questions about the administration of the body corporate and I understand him to be asking that an administrator be appointed until his application for final orders is determined.
• [5] For the reasons given below, I have made the above interim orders and reserved my decision on the application for an interim order for an administrator.

• [6] Everglades community titles scheme 14058 (Everglades) is a 7-lot scheme and common property in Surfers Paradise. It is registered as BUP1041, a building units format plan of subdivision. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies.
• [7] The applicant is the owner of Lot 7.
• [8] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Everglades.

• [9] An adjudicator has jurisdiction generally to make orders that are just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute between certain parties about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[1]
• [10] The parties to the dispute are the owner of a lot and the body corporate. This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act and the applicant has standing.[2] This application concerns disputes about claimed and anticipated contraventions of the Act. I am satisfied it falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[3]
• [11] The Commissioner referred the application for interim orders to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act. An adjudicator has the power to make an interim order "if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[4]
• [12] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. In the circumstances, I provided the committee with a copy of the application and gave it a short time in which to make a submission. Pursuant to my powers of investigation, I also sought further information about the most recent body corporate manager (BCM) for the scheme and also information and submissions about the applicant's request for an interim order about the administration of the scheme pending final orders.

• [13] The applicant explains that one person (the Majority Owner representative) holds the position of chairperson, treasurer, and secretary of the body corporate. Further, he says the Majority Owner also holds the majority of the contribution schedule lot entitlements which means he can use a poll vote to cause the body corporate to make decisions at general meetings.
• [14] The applicant raises general concerns about the management of the body corporate, the perilous state of its finances, and multiple pressing maintenance issues. Regarding maintenance and the physical state of the buildings and infrastructure he says:
  1. In July 2025 a fault in the electrical box caused a power loss to his hot water system and he was without hot water for days. The applicant contacted the BCM who was unable to obtain committee approval for emergency repairs. The applicant organised temporary repairs to the switchboard and paid for those himself. During the course of these repairs, the applicant learned there were serious safety issues with the electrical infrastructure at the scheme.
  2. The common property staircase that provides the only access to his lot is severely compromised and at risk of collapse. The applicant says it is extremely unsafe and there is a real risk of severe injury.
  3. In or around 2024, the Majority Owner undertook plumbing and other renovation works to one of his lots which caused water and sewerage to pour into Lot 3 below, videos of which were provided.
• [15] The applicant also provides information about the annual general meeting of the body corporate held in August 2025 (2025 AGM) and the motions considered and decisions made by the body corporate at that meeting. He attaches the minutes of the AGM to show the current state of the body corporate's finances and that the body corporate failed to pass the motions for budgets and contribution levies for its current financial year.
• [16] Ultimately the applicant seeks a range of final orders. The final orders relate to decisions made at the AGM, seek reimbursement for his expenditure on repairs to common property, and orders about the executive positions on the committee for the body corporate.
• [17] While his application for final orders is pending, the applicant seeks several interim orders, two of which are described as urgent. The interim orders sought and the grounds for those orders are discussed in more detail in the analysis section below.

• [18] The committee, through the Majority Owner, opposes the application and the interim orders sought. Although he requested an extension of time to make a submission about the application for interim orders, given the urgency of the circumstance I denied that request. In any event, he provided a submission opposing each of the orders sought. He advised that the body corporate's contract with the BCM had expired and claims the body corporate is operating under valid self-management as intended under the Act.
• [19] A submission was also received from the owner of another lot. That owner supports the application for interim orders. She says an electrician attended the scheme on 8 September, confirmed the switchboard is extremely unsafe and the mains cable needs a roof bracket to lift it to meet legal height.

• [20] As an initial matter, I am satisfied the applicant has made ample efforts at self-resolution of the disputes.
• [21] The notice for the body corporate's AGM held on 6 August 2025 (2025 AGM) show 19 motions were proposed for consideration along with the election of the committee. The applicant raises legal issues regarding several of those motions. Where there are several legal principles common to each, I will first briefly describe those principles before reviewing the individual motions and specific issues raised relating to each. I will also make some findings of fact that are generally relevant to the dispute and to several of the orders sought.
• [22] My analysis of the dispute is not presented in the same orders as the disputed motions or in the same sequence as the orders sought. This is because I understand that the interim orders sought about the suspension of the treasurer and secretary and the appointment of a BCM, are a request for an administrator. That issue is affected by and informed by the other disputed motions. As such, it makes sense to review that issue last.

• [23] The legislation describes which parts of a community titles scheme the lot owners are responsible for maintaining, and which parts the body corporate is responsible for. Owners are obligated to maintain their lot in good condition, except for those parts of the lot that are the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[5]
• [24] The body corporate is obligated to maintain common property, "in good condition, including, to the extent that common property is structural in nature, in a structurally sound condition."[6] Where lots in the scheme are created under a building format plan of subdivision (as Everglades is), the body corporate may have additional maintenance responsibilities.[7]
• [25] The body corporate is obligated to "remedy any defect as soon as any of the building parts covered by the duty fall into disrepair or were not operating properly."[8]

• [26] The body corporate must also manage its finances for the benefit of owners of lots. As part of this duty, at each AGM, the body corporate must:
  1. Adopt by way of an ordinary resolution, an administrative fund and a sinking fund budget for each financial year.[9]
  2. The administrative fund budget must be based on estimates of necessary and reasonable spending in the financial year to cover costs of maintaining common property and body corporate assets, insurance, and other recurring expenditure.[10]
  3. The sinking fund budget must provide for a 'reasonable capital amount' to provide for necessary and reasonable spending for the financial year, and to accumulate a proportionate amount of the anticipated spending on capital or non-recurrent expenditure for at least the next 9 years.[11]
  4. Based on the adopted budgets, the body corporate must also, by ordinary resolution, set the total contributions to be levied and the per lot contributions.[12] With few exceptions, the liability for contributions levied on lot owners must be calculated in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlements (Contribution Entitlements).[13] The body corporate must also decide the number of instalments in which those contributions are to be paid and set the date by which instalments are required.[14]
  5. If a liability arises for which no provision or inadequate provision has been made in the administrative or sinking fund, a body corporate must by ordinary resolution fix a special contribution.[15] Such levies are commonly referred to as a "special levy."
• [27] The size of the annual administrative fund budget for a body corporate will depend upon its reasonably anticipated spending for the maintenance of common property and other recurring expenditure. Similarly, the size of the annual sinking fund budget may vary from year to year.
• [28] Although the committee may make some spending decisions for the body corporate, the amount authorised by the committee cannot exceed the amount set as the limit for committee spending.[16] In cases of emergency, a body corporate can apply for an order of an adjudicator authorising it to spend in excess of its spending limit.[17]

• [29] The person chairing a general meeting of a body corporate must rule a motion out of order in circumstances where, if carried, the motion would conflict with the Act, the regulations, or the scheme's by-laws_[.]_1818 Section 98(1) of the Standard Module Where a motion is ruled out of order, however, the persons present and entitled to vote may decide to reverse that ruling and proceed to vote on the motion.[19]
• [30] For motions to be decided at a general meeting, a motion is passed by ordinary resolution when votes counted for the motion are more than the votes counted against the motion.[20]
• [31] However, for motions to be decided by ordinary resolution (except for those by secret ballot), a person entitled to vote at a general meeting may ask for a poll for the counting of votes. When such a request is properly made, the motion is passed by ordinary resolution only if the total of the Contribution Entitlements of lots voting in favour of the motion is more than the total of the Contribution Entitlements of lots voting against the motion.[21]
• [32] For Everglades, the total of all Contribution Entitlements is 40, with 28 of those (or 70%) attaching to lots controlled by the Majority Owner. In practice, this means the Majority Owner controls the body corporate's decision about any motion that is to be determined by poll.

• [33] The audited financial statements for the body corporate that were attached to the notice for the AGM show that as of 1 May 2025, the body corporate was only holding a very small balance in both its administrative and sinking funds. Correspondence included with the application suggest the current balance of those funds is even lower.
• [34] The minutes from the August 2025 AGM show that the body corporate has not approved administrative fund and sinking fund budgets or the respective levies for those funds for the coming year. It also appears that no levy notices have been issued for the period May to July 2025.

• [35] Motion 11, submitted by the applicant as the owner of Lot 7 and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that the body corporate repair or replace the stairs leading to the unit. The motion also added that quotes were needed to finish off the front common area and that "the electricity switch board is not legal or compliant and quotes are needed by a licensed electrician."
• [36] The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll and that the motion was defeated with 7 entitlements voted in favour and 33 against.
• [37] The applicant says the staircase leading to Lot 7 is the only way to access his lot. He says it is rusted, pulling away from the building, is severely compromised, and at risk of collapse.
• [38] The applicant says the staircase is extremely unsafe and there is a real risk of severe injury. Photos illustrating the poor condition of the staircase were included with the application.
• [39] As for the electrical issues, the applicant says the electrical switchboard requires immediate maintenance because it is defective and poses a high fire risk and loss of life through electrocution.
• [40] He also says the defects have caused issues with the power and have left him without hot water in his unit for several days. The applicant says he organised an electrician to attend and inspect the switchboard. Included with the application was a copy of the electrician's report and invoice dated 8 July 2025.
• [41] The electrician's report states:

1. The power supply to the hot water system had been deliberately isolated and the fuse protecting the hot water circuit had blown. A temporary repair was undertaken to restore function. 2. The condition of the switchboard was described as non-compliant with current electrical standards, and multiple critical safety defects requiring immediate rectification including:

(i) exposed live parts > > (ii) no residual current device (RCD) protection on multiple circuits, presenting a serious electrical safety risk > > (iii) incorrect protective device discrimination, with the main breaker tripping before the sub-board breaker indicating poor coordination between devices > > (iv) aged obsolete dvices, including outdated circuit breakers and potentially asbestos containing backing panels > > (v) unsealed openings and vermin access, and > > (vi) poor labelling.

1. A full switchboard upgrade is legally required to ensure compliance with Australian Standards.

• [42] The electrician's risk assessment was that the defects present a high risk of electric shock, fire, and total power loss to the building. Continued operation in the current state is unsafe and non-compliant with Australian electrical safety standards. He "strongly" recommended a full upgrade of the switchboard and provided a quote of $19,921.81 (ex GST) for the works. The electrician also advised he was required by law to report to Energex the issues with the low hanging mains lines from the common property electrical pole to the building.
• [43] The applicant says Energex attended and advised:
  1. they do not do switchboard maintenance
  2. the switchboard was not compliant with either the Queensland Safety Act 2002 or the Electrical regulations
  3. the switchboard posed an electrocution risk and a fire risk, especially due to the rubbish nearby, and
  4. the powerlines hanging and accessible by hand from the balcony of the applicant's lot are a serious risk to life and a qualified electrician must attend to make safe by restoring those lines to legal height.
• [44] Energex issued a defect notice to the body corporate requiring the body corporate to engage an electrical contractor to rectify the defects. A copy of the notice was included with the application. The defects were Code H and Q defects, which were described as damage to the switchboard making wiring accessible, and issues with the height of the consumer mains lines where they cross the step platform.
• [45] The applicant also says the insurer has also indicated claims for fire may be denied given the Energex notice. The application included a copy of the Energex notice and correspondence received from the insurer stating, "it is imperative that the instructions by Energex is followed."
• [46] In July 2025, the BCM also emailed the committee expressing concerns about the condition of the electrical systems at the scheme and seeking instructions from the committee as to how to proceed. The BCM also noted concerns about the body corporate's finances and its ability to fund such works. Given potential safety concerns about non-compliant electricity infrastructure, the BCM sought instruction from the committee about whether it consented to her investigating options for deferred billing for works pending collection of levies.
• [47] A subsequent email from the BCM also suggests that the day after the August 2025 EGM, a qualified electrical contractor who was at the scheme to provide a quotation for maintenance works to the electrical switchboard was refused access by the Majority Owner.
• [48] The applicant is seeking an interim order that the body corporate perform "make safe" maintenance works on the staircase and also that it be required to "make safe" the electrical infrastructure so that Energex will lift the defect notice.
• [49] The Majority Owner, ostensibly on behalf of the committee, says quotes from licensed electricians have been obtained.

• [50] I am satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious legal question, with a sufficient chance of success, about the body corporate's compliance with its duty to maintain the common property and common property utility infrastructure in good and or a structurally sound condition.
• [51] I am satisfied for the purposes of an interim order that the applicant has raised a serious legal question about whether the body corporate is complying with its duty to maintain the common property electrical switchboard in good condition.
• [52] Similarly, I am sufficiently satisfied for the preliminary purposes of an interim order that the staircase is common property of a structural nature and that the body corporate has a strict statutory duty to maintain it in structurally sound condition. The photos of the staircase demonstrate there is a serious question to be answered about whether the body corporate has complied with its duty to maintain common property.

• [53] In my view, the body corporate's duty to maintain includes at a minimum doing the works required to keep the common property in condition that complies with an Energex Defects Report and does not risk the safety of occupiers. I am persuaded from the application that make safe works to the staircase and to the electrical switchboard are urgent. In such circumstances, the balance of harm weighs significantly in favour of making interim orders.
• [54] I have made the requested interim orders about the make safe works. I have ordered that, within 48 hours, the body corporate must engage a qualified electrician to ensure the body corporate complies with the Energex Defect Report by making safe the access to the switchboard and by ensuring that the mains lines are at legal height.
• [55] Where I am satisfied the issue with the electrical infrastructure qualifies as an emergency, regardless whether the amount is above the committee's spending or not, I am authorising the spending by the committee for the "make safe" repairs.
• [56] Given the electrician's report obtained by the applicant about the non-compliant state of the switchboard, I have also made an interim order that the body corporate have the switchboard inspected by a second electrician and obtain recommendations and a second quote. The Majority Owner provided such quotes with his submission. To the extent the body corporate has the funds available to proceed with the electrical works to the switchboard, I have made an order that the body corporate have those works completed within 14 days.
• [57] I have also made an interim order that the body corporate have the staircase providing access to Lot 7 inspected and obtain a quote for any "make safe" works that are required. To the extent the body corporate has sufficient funds on hand, I have also ordered that the body corporate undertake those works.
• [58] I am aware from the audited financials that the body corporate has quite limited funds. I consider it likely that the body corporate may not have sufficient funds to undertake the works to the staircase. If that is the case, this may inform my decision about whether to appoint an administrator.

• [59] Motion 14, submitted by the Majority Owner and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that the owner of Lot 3 pay for sewerage pipe rectification as per an attached quote because it was "damaged due to unauthorised concrete slab and earth works." The attached quote was dated August 2024 and appears to be in the amount of $31,495.
• [60] The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll vote and that the motion was carried with 28 entitlements voted in favour of the motion and 12 against.
• [61] The applicant says there is no evidence to suggest there are any issues with the sewerage system for the scheme. Although it is an aging system, there is no need to replace it now and there have been no blockages since September 2024. Moreover, the quote is a year old and there is no second quote.
• [62] The applicant also says the motion by the Majority Owner unfairly targets the owner of Lot 3 because:
  1. The Majority Owner undertook his own plumbing works to one of his lots causing thousands of dollars of damage from water and sewerage leaks into Lot 3 below (videos of which were provided) and has been in dispute with Lot 3 since.
  2. The Majority Owner is pressuring the Lot 3 owner to sell to him at a reduced price.
  3. Repairs to the common property infrastructure are the responsibility of the body corporate, not owners.
  4. This is an abuse of power by the Majority Owner with the other 3 owners helpless and unable to do anything. It is causing significant emotional distress to the owners of Lot 3 who are in their 70s.
• [63] The applicant seeks an interim order restraining the body corporate from taking any steps to implement this motion until final orders are made.
• [64] The Majority Owner made a submission on behalf of the committee representing that for plumbing, "emergency works" have been completed, with the invoices for those works included with the submission. One invoice was dated 8 September 2025 and relates to an inspection of the sewer infrastructure at the scheme. The second invoice was dated 9 September 2025 (yesterday) was for $14,749 and refers to 2 days of excavation works, and 2.5 days of two qualified plumbers. It is not clear when these works were completed and the Majority Owner does not indicate how the works were authorised by the body corporate nor how the works were funded.

• [65] I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions about whether the vaguely described works referred to in Motion 14 are necessary and whether they are the responsibility of the body corporate. To the extent the body corporate believes an owner has caused damage to common property and is responsible for that damage, my initial view is that the body corporate would first need to take steps to obtain a determination as to liability. In other words, I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions about whether the motion was valid and whether the body corporate had the power to make the resolution.
• [66] I am also satisfied that serious legal questions have been raised about whether the motion itself is valid as the quote is outdated and it fails to include a second quote. Finally, I am satisfied the applicant has raised a serious question whether the body corporate has acted reasonably in passing this motion.
• [67] I consider each of the above has a sufficient chance of success for me to consider whether to make the interim order requested.

• [68] Where the quote attached to Motion 14 for the works is almost a year old, I do not consider there is any urgency to have the works begun. However, it now appears that the Majority Owner appears to have authorised (as the committee) purported "emergency" plumbing works and that at least some works are now "completed." It is not immediately apparent whether these are the same works contemplated by Motion 14, nor is it clear how the works undertaken or spending for those works was approved by the body corporate.
• [69] In view of the multiple serious legal issues raised about this motion, especially about whether the motion is within the body corporate's power, I am satisfied the balance of harm favours the granting of the requested interim order.

Motion 16 - Unauthorised yard modifications repair

• [70] Motion 16, submitted by the Majority Owner and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that external contractors repair and re-level "unauthorised yard modifications that were conducted without approval."
• [71] The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll vote and that the motion was carried with 28 entitlements voted in favour of the motion and 12 against.
• [72] The applicant says the yard is in excellent condition and the steps are necessary for occupiers to walk safely down the sloping area. Moreover, he says the slope offers protection from flooding and the concrete slab to the side offers a nice place to enjoy the common area. He also says the works are unnecessary and there are no funds to do them.
• [73] The applicant seeks an interim order restraining the body corporate from taking any steps to implement this motion until final orders are made. The applicant says an interim order is necessary because there are indications the Majority Owner has started these works himself as there was evidence of excavating material and partial grass removal at the complex last week and the cost will cause financial distress. Further, the applicant says leveling the yard will increase the risk of flooding from the river.
• [74] The Majority Owner says the works are on common property and benefit all. He provides photos that he says evidence issues with sewer lines.

• [75] I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions about the validity of the motion and the body corporate's decision to pass it. The motion itself was vague and did not provide any details about the scope of the works, who was proposed to perform them, and what the works would cost. No quotes were provided for the works. Given those issues with the motion itself, I am also satisfied the applicant has raised a serious legal question whether the body corporate acted reasonably in passing this motion.

• [76] If the interim order is made and the applicant is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a final order about this motion, the only harm to the body corporate is a delay in having the works completed. Conversely, if the applicant ultimately obtains a ruling that the motion and resolution were void but no interim order is made and works proceed, owners may be harmed financially by paying once to have the modifications removed and a second time to have them reinstated. Accordingly, I am satisfied the balance of harm weighs in favour of granting of the requested interim order.

• [77] Motion 17, submitted by the Majority Owner and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that a tree outside lot 2 be removed due to its root system lifting the adjacent slab. A picture of the tree was attached to the notice for the AGM.
• [78] The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll vote and that the motion was carried with 28 entitlements voted in favour of the motion and 12 against.
• [79] The applicant says the tree is healthy, adds shade, and enhances the look of the property. He says it is not causing any damage. I understand the applicant to be asserting the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing this motion. In terms of urgency supporting his request for interim orders, the applicant says the body corporate does not have the funds to engage a contractor and the Majority Owner has in the past done works himself which have caused damage to common property.
• [80] I understand the Majority Owner to be suggesting the tree is a Moreton Bay fig which poses a structural risk.

• [81] I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions about the body corporate's decision to pass Motion 17. The motion itself was vague and did not provide any details about who is proposed to remove the tree and what the works would cost. My preliminary view is that the photo shows the tree is not particularly large, and does not show it lifting the adjacent slab. No quotes were provided for the works.
• [82] My preliminary view is that the applicant has raised a serious legal question about whether the body corporate acted reasonably when it decided to pass this motion.

• [83] If the interim order is made and the applicant is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a final order about this motion, the only harm to the body corporate is a delay in having the tree removed. Conversely, if the applicant ultimately obtains a ruling that the resolution is void but no interim order is made and the tree is removed, the same tree cannot (obviously) be re-instated.
• [84] For these reasons, I am satisfied the balance of harm weighs in favour of making the requested order about the tree.

• [85] Motion 18, submitted by the Majority Owner and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that "all weekly strata levies for all units regardless of entitlements to be $100 per week due to cost of insurance + rectifications to property." It proposed further that a special levy of $9,800 (incl GST) be raised according to entitlements, with levy notices to be issued immediately after the AGM, and to be made payable by 30 August 2025.
• [86] The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll vote and that the motion was carried with 28 entitlements voted in favour of the motion and 12 against.
• [87] The applicant says Motion 18 was not a lawful motion because it changes the raising of levies from a Contribution Entitlement basis to a per lot basis. He also says this purported change is to benefit the Majority Owner because he bears the largest share of the body corporate fees due to his Contribution Entitlement share (which is 70% or 28 of the 40 entitlements).
• [88] The applicant says the interim order is needed urgently because if this motion is implemented prior to the determination of final orders, the three minority lot owners will suffer financial loss.
• [89] The Majority Owner contends that the legislation permits equal contributions "where expenditure benefits all lots equally." He says works to the switchboard, sewer, and stairs benefit all.

• [90] I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions about the validity of Motion 18. The legislation clearly provides that contribution levies are to be calculated proportionally to the Contribution Entitlements. To change the schedule of Contribution Entitlements, a body corporate must first pass a resolution without dissent. In other words, my preliminary view is that a body corporate has no power to resolve by ordinary resolution at a general meeting to levy owners for contributions to the administrative and sinking funds "regardless of entitlements." Although the Majority Owner points me to a provision in the legislation that he says allows a body to charge contributions equally, my preliminary view is that the section he is referring to only permits contributions for insurance premiums to be potentially equal.
• [91] Where the motion on its face appears to conflict with the legislation, I am satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious legal question about the validity of this part of the motion and the power of the body corporate to resolve to pass it.
• [92] Motion 18 also purports to fix a special levy of $9,800. However, the motion does not describe the specific liability for which the contribution is required. My preliminary view is that there is also a serious legal question raised about whether the second part of the motion is in conflict with the Act and therefore also invalid.

• [93] If the interim order is made and the applicant is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a final order about this motion, the body corporate could conceivably suffer harm as it will not collect the contributions contemplated by this motion. Conversely, if the interim order is not made and the body corporate proceeds to collect contributions in a way that is contrary to the legislation, the applicant and the owners of 2 other lots will be harmed. On balance, and in view of my orders below, I am satisfied the balance weighs in favour of granting the interim order.

Motion 8 - appointment of body corporate manager

• [94] Motion 8, submitted by the committee and to be decided by ordinary resolution, proposed that a BCM be appointed for the period of 1 year and that the body corporate authorise the BCM to carry out the duties and functions of secretary and treasurer for the body corporate. The minutes of the 2025 AGM show that the chairperson requested the motion be determined by poll vote and that the motion was defeated with 7 entitlements voted in favour of the motion and 28 against, and one ruled invalid.
• [95] The applicant says the body corporate has had 3 different managers in 3 years. He says owners are concerned that if the Majority Owner is left to manage the body corporate, he will continue to refuse urgent repairs and quotes submitted by other owners. The applicant also suggests owners are fearful of bullying and abuse from the Majority Owner. He says the body corporate has no budget in place and no levy notices have been issued, with no foreseeable way that this will be rectified where the Majority Owner refuses to engage in proper communication and defeats the minority 3 unit holders down with his votes.
• [96] In addition, the applicant says the Majority Owner insists the AGM was conducted in a compliant manner and that all motions will stand. The applicant says the Majority Owner refuses to deal with urgent repairs, to consider their quotes, or engage in proper communication. He says with the Majority Owner managing the complex, the 3 minority owners are at real risk and fearful of emotional and financial abuse.
• [97] The applicant is seeking interim orders that the Majority Owner be suspended from the roles of chairperson, treasurer, and secretary, and that Motion 8 - engaging the BCM and having it perform the roles of treasurer and secretary - is deemed carried until final orders are made.
• [98] The applicant says these orders are needed urgently because with no budgets in place, no levies struck, the body corporate does not even have sufficient funds to deal with a single emergency. He also says owners need structure and support from a BCM to act as a middleman and to manage the complex and keeping it maintained in a safe and compliant way.
• [99] The Majority Owner opposes these interim orders. He says there have been years of mismanagement of the body corporate by former body corporate management companies. For this reason, he says the scheme is currently self-managed which is a valid arrangement under the Act. He provides photos that he says demonstrate responsible upkeep of the common property. He says generally that the scheme is now operating "responsibly, transparently, and in compliance with the legislation. He also refutes the assertions that he is acting in a hostile manner and says he (as the committee) is the one being bullied and harassed.

• [100] By requesting these two interim orders, I understand the applicant to be seeking the appointment of an administrator for a temporary period.
• [101] The responsibility for self-management is a defining feature of bodies corporate in Queensland and is one of the objects of the Act.[22] However, the legislation does provide that an adjudicator may make an order appointing and authorising an administrator to perform obligations of the body corporate or its committee.[23] An adjudicator may also appoint an administrator to assist with the enforcement of an order made for the application.[24]
• [102] An administrator appointed by an adjudicator will have the powers given to the administrator under the terms of the order.[25] An adjudicator can empower an administrator to take a loan on behalf of the body corporate and to levy special contributions.[26]
• [103] The power to appoint an administrator is a discretionary one. The legislation does not prescribe the criteria or describe the circumstances in which an adjudicator should exercise it. One tribunal has opined that an adjudicator may appoint an administrator in circumstances where satisfied the body corporate is so dysfunctional that it cannot operate properly within the legislation, or there is a well-founded suspicion that there is improper use of body corporate funds, or there is conduct amounting to undue oppression of minority owners.[27]
• [104] I am satisfied for the purposes of an interim order that the body corporate has inadequate amounts in its administrative and sinking funds to comply with its statutory duties and that it has failed to set budgets and contributions for the current financial year. I have serious concerns that it will be unable to pay for at least some of the "make safe" works that are likely required.
• [105] For those reasons, I am satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious legal question whether an administrator should be appointed to enforce some of the interim orders or more generally until final orders can be determined.

• [106] Although I am of the view that the body corporate's limited funds, lack of budgets and contribution levies, are urgent issues, I am in the process of investigating whether it would be appropriate to make an interim order appointing an administrator and, if so, what powers should be given to the administrator. My decision about an administrator will also be informed by the costs of the works required to comply with Interim Orders 2 and 3 and whether the body corporate has the funds available to undertake those works.
• [107] Where I consider many of the interim orders sought are urgent in nature, however, I do not wish to delay making those orders while my investigations about an interim administrator are being finalised. For this reason, and somewhat unusually, I am determining this application for interim orders in two parts.
• [108] I will make the interim orders discussed above. At the same time, I am expressly reserving my decision about the application for interim orders for an administrator pending receipt of further information from the applicant and all owners.
• [109] In my opinion, the express discretion afforded to me pursuant to section 279(2) of the Act to extend, vary, renew or cancel an interim order empowers me to approach the application in this way. Moreover, I am satisfied in the circumstances that it is just and equitable to do so.

• [110] I have made several of the interim orders requested by the applicants for the reasons given above. I have reserved my decision about the applicant's request for two additional interim orders pending further investigations.
• [111] As noted above, an adjudicator has the power to extend, vary, renew, or cancel an interim order. Any affected person may request that I do so.
• [112] After I issue an amended interim order that includes my decision about the appointment of an administrator, the application for final orders will be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[28] The dispute may then be finally resolved by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from the respondent, owners, and other affected persons.

[3] Sections 226, 228 and 276 of the Act

[5] See Section 211 of the Standard Module

[6] See Section 180(1) of the Standard Module

[7] See Section 180(2) of the Standard Module

[8] Searles DCJ in Klinger & Anor v. Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 67

[9] Section 160(1) of the Standard Module

[10] Section 160(2) of the Standard Module

[11] Section 160(3) of the Standard Module

[12] Sections 160(2)(b), 160(3)(b) and 162(1) of the Standard Module

[13] Section 162(5) of the Standard Module. Although the Majority Owner refers to section 201 of the Act as permitting equal contributions, I infer he is referring to section 201 of the Standard Module. That section, however, applies to contributions for insurance premiums only.

[14] Section 162(1)(c) of the Standard Module

[15] Section 162(2) of the Standard Module

[16] See e.g., Section 172 of the Standard Module

[17] See Section 172(1)(c) of the Standard Module [.]

[19] Section 98(3) of the Standard Module

[23] See Schedule 5 to the Act, at Item 23

[24] See Section 276(4)(b) of the Act

[26] See e.g., Albert Lodge [2025] QBCCMCmr 235

[27] Surace v Commisso, [2009] QCCTBCCM 042 at [44] Mackenzie QC, also cited as [2009] CCT KA 002-09