INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances.

Act, ss 151, 279; Standard Module, ss 160, 162, and 201

1. Interim Orders 1 and 2 made in Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 310 (Everglades 1) on 10 September 2025 continue to apply to the body corporate.
2. Interim Order 3 made in Everglades 1 is hereby varied to require the body corporate to undertake remediation works to make safe the front external staircase (Staircase) that provides access to Lot 7, and that the owner of Lot 2 (Sharon Lock) and Mark Boys (acting under power of attorney for the applicant, the owner of Lot 7) are appointed jointly as administrators to assist the body corporate in complying with Interim Order 3, and those persons shall have the power to:

1. obtain quotes from appropriate tradesperson(s) to perform remediation works necessary to make safe the Staircase to Lot 7 (Staircase Quotes) 2. call a general meeting of the body corporate and propose the following motions, that: 1. the body corporate resolve to accept a Staircase Quote, and 2. that the body corporate fix a special contribution, by ordinary resolution and in a way that complies with section 162(2) of the Standard Module, which special contribution is be levied on the owners of each lot in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlement to meet the liability for the Staircase Quote, and

1. on behalf of the body corporate and complying with section 163 of the Standard Module, issue owners with notices of the special contribution(s) payable for the staircase works.
2. Interim Order 4 made in Everglades 1 continues to 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the earlier of: the issue by an adjudicator of a further interim or final order for the application, the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended, or 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order.
3. I also make a new interim order, Interim Order 6, that, within 7 days of this order, by a vote outside committee meeting, the committee must authorise one of the existing ordinary members of the committee (namely, the owner of Lot 2, Lot 3 or the representative of the owner of Lot 7) to act as the second signatory on the body corporate's bank account(s) 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the earlier of: the issue by an adjudicator of a further interim or final order for the application, the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended, or 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order.

• [1] This application is about a 7-lot scheme. Four of the lots in the scheme are owned or controlled by one person (the Majority Owner). This leaves the owners of the remaining 3 lots in the minority.
• [2] The body corporate held its annual general meeting (AGM) in August 2025 at which owners considered 19 motions and elected a committee. By virtue of his voting power, the Majority Owner was elected to the positions of chairperson, secretary, and treasurer.
• [3] This application for interim orders is concerned with decisions made at the AGM and urgent maintenance of common property. The application also raises issues about who should serve as the chairperson, secretary, and treasurer for the body corporate. The applicant seeks 7 interim orders while the application for final orders is pending.
• [4] I considered the application for interim orders in two parts. Where I viewed some of the relief sought was urgent and had sufficient information, I made some preliminary determinations. For those aspects of the application, I issued some of the requested orders as Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 310 (Everglades 1). Two of the orders made in Everglades 1 required the body corporate to carry out certain works to make safe the electrical infrastructure and to make safe an external staircase at the scheme. The applicant says the orders have not been complied with and he has had to move out of his lot as it is no longer safe to access.
• [5] The remaining parts of the application seek interim orders that the Majority Owner be removed from committee positions and that a body corporate manager (BC Manager) perform the vacant roles of secretary and treasurer. The applicant says this is necessary because the Majority Owner is not performing his roles, the common property is not maintained, the body corporate failed to pass budgets at its AGM and it has no funds. I initially understood the applicant to be seeking an interim order appointing the BC Manager temporarily as an administrator. I reserved my decision on the interim orders about committee positions so that I could undertake further investigations and clarify what was being sought.
• [6] The applicant advised that he did not seek the appointment of the BC Manager as an administrator and that the company proposed for the role of BC Manager no longer wishes to provide its services to the scheme. The applicant confirmed that at this time he is seeking interim orders that the Majority Owner be removed from his positions on the committee and that the other 3 committee members be appointed to serve in those roles.
• [7] In opposing the interim orders sought, the Majority Owner claims that the scheme is operating responsibly, is not dysfunctional, and that allegations of failures in governance are not supported. He also asserts the body corporate has taken "immediate action" to comply with the interim orders and ensure safety at the scheme.
• [8] In this decision and order, I consider and make determinations about the applicant's remaining requests for interim orders. For the reasons given below, I have not made the requested interim orders about committee positions but have made one interim order about financial management. The parties are reminded that the interim orders in Everglades 1 remain in place and continue to apply.

• [9] 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.
• [10] The applicant is the owner of Lot 7.
• [11] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Everglades.

• [12] 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]
• [13] The parties to the dispute are the owner of a lot and the body corporate.[2] This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act and the applicant has standing.[3] 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.[4]
• [14] The Commissioner referred the application for interim orders to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act. An adjudicator has the specific 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."[5]
• [15] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. In the circumstances, pursuant to my powers of investigation, I sought further information from the committee. As part of my investigation, I also sought further information from several contractors whom I thought would be able to assist with issues raised by the application.

• [16] The only issue to decide at this time is whether the requested interim orders relating to committee positions and administration of the body corporate are warranted.
• [17] The applicant originally sought interim orders that:
  1. the Majority Owner be suspended from the roles of chairperson, Treasurer, and secretary for the body corporate pending final orders, and
  2. Motion 8 at the AGM motion - proposing the appointment of a BC Manager to carry out the duties and functions of secretary and treasurer - be deemed passed pending the determination of the application for final orders.
• [18] Although I initially understood the applicant was in effect seeking to have the BC Manager appointed to administer the body corporate by acting as secretary and treasurer, the applicant has clarified that was not what he was seeking. In any event, the BC Manager nominated in Motion 8 does not want to perform any services for the body corporate. The BC Manager nominated in Motion 8 has withdrawn its offer to provide services. Accordingly the requested interim order deeming Motion 8 as passed pending final orders is now moot.
• [19] The applicant has confirmed he continues to seek an interim order that the Majority Owner be temporarily suspended from committee positions. He asks for an interim order that the ordinary members of the committee be temporarily appointed to those roles.
• [20] I will first provide a brief summary of some of the legal principles that are relevant to this application. I will then consider whether the requested interim orders are warranted and appropriate.

• [21] Adjudicators are empowered to issue 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."[6]
• [22] If satisfied an order is necessary, adjudicators may make an interim order that is just and equitable. Adjudicators often make interim orders in the form of a temporary injunction (an order not to do something) to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of an application. Adjudicators may also make interim orders requiring action to be taken.
• [23] To determine if it is just and equitable to make an interim order, there must be some reason in law to make an order. For this, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered.
• [24] For the purposes of an interim order, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their arguments will be ultimately successful.[7] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success on the legal issues presented to warrant making an interim order.
• [25] I must also consider the nature of the circumstances, and the practical reasons for and likely effects of an interim order. This is known as assessing the balance of convenience between the parties. To do this, I must consider the inconvenience or harm to the applicant if I do not make an interim order but it is later determined that the body corporate has contravened the Act. I must weigh that against the harm to the body corporate if I make an interim order and the applicant is later unsuccessful in the application for final orders.
• [26] Accordingly, to determine whether I am satisfied interim orders are warranted and appropriate, I will proceed to consider whether serious legal issues have been raised with sufficient likelihood of success. If so, I will consider the nature of the circumstances presented and weigh the balance of convenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.

• [27] The applicant is seeking interim orders that the Majority Owner be suspended from the roles of chairperson, treasurer, and secretary and that the 3 ordinary committee members temporarily serve in those roles. The applicant says that the interim order is needed urgently because, with no budgets in place, and no contributions notices sent, the body corporate does not even have sufficient funds to deal with a single emergency.
• [28] The applicant says the Majority Owner:

1. does not comply with the legislation for administering the body corporate or the spending of body corporate funds and is bankrupting the scheme 2. refuses emergency maintenance repairs, and repeatedly expresses ignorance of the legislation, including safety issues 3. instructs that only he is permitted to organize quotes or reports 4. refuses to engage in proper communication or share information and invoices with the committee and owners 5. causes the body corporate to pass vexatious motions with a poll vote, which cannot be overcome by the minority 3 lot owners 6. called an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) for 10 October 2025 which

(i) was to be conducted online only, which the owners of Lot 2 cannot attend > > (ii) did not include budgets or provision for levies, which means the body corporate will continue to be without funds to complete basic maintenance, repairs, or make safe works, and > > (iii) the agenda does not include 3 committee motions

1. is actively pursuing the owners of Lots 2 and 3 to sell to him for less than market value

1. engages in bullying and abuse and owners are fearful of him, and
2. if left to manage the body corporate, the Majority Owner will continue to refuse urgent repairs and quotes submitted by other owners.

• [29] I provided the committee with a brief opportunity to make a submission. In his capacity as secretary, the Majority Owner made a submission opposing the interim orders sought. He says there have been years of mismanagement of the body corporate by management companies. He says this is why the scheme is currently self-managed. He says self-management is a valid arrangement under the Act. He provides photos he says demonstrate responsible upkeep of the common property. The Majority Owner 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 is the one being bullied and harassed.
• [30] In response to my subsequent investigations, the Majority Owner also represented that:
  1. he is the sole signatory of the body corporate's bank account
  2. the bank account has a balance of zero
  3. as secretary, he called an EGM for 10 October 2025 and subsequently issued a notice to reschedule it for 16 October
  4. in compliance with the Everglades 1 and the Energex defect notice the electrical switchboard has been fitted with an Energex lock and is "currently safe and secured"
  5. two licensed contractors have inspected the staircase and both confirmed there is "no immediate danger" with quotes for permanent remediation works obtained and funding via special levy to be approved at the October EGM, and
  6. "emergency" plumbing works were undertaken in the past 6 months to clear blockages.
• [31] Regarding the administration of the body corporate, the Majority Owner as secretary, also provided me with a copy of a notice for an October 2025 EGM. He says that:
  1. a financial forecast had been prepared and the body corporate would set an administrative and sinking fund budget at the EGM
  2. quotes for the "permanent remediation works" for the staircase and the electrical switchboard have been obtained and are included as motions on the agenda for the EGM, and
  3. a motion proposing a special levy for urgent works (switchboard, staircase remediation, and sewer) payable in equal contributions was on the agenda for the EGM.
• [32] In summary, the Majority Owner says the Body Corporate has taken all reasonable and lawful steps to manage the scheme in a responsible, compliant, and safety-focused manner and that the impending EGM will rectify issues of non-compliance with the legislation.
• [33] Two submissions about the application for interim orders were also received from the owners of the other 2 lots, who are also members of the committee. Both support the application for interim orders relating to committee positions. A committee member says:
  1. the body corporate has no funds
  2. the Majority Owner passes motions at will - for unneeded expenses - they fear for the safety and value of their property and do not believe the body corporate can function without a manager
  3. the Majority Owner's motion to change the levy structure is unfair and to his benefit but is to their detriment
  4. the staircase to Lot 7 is so rusted it could collapse
  5. electricians have confirmed the switchboard is unsafe and the mains cable is within reach and life-threatening, and
  6. the issues with the body corporate are affecting their health
• [34] Another ordinary member of the committee says:
  1. the secretary (i.e., the Majority Owner) did not consult the rest of the committee and the "committee" submission about the application was written solely by the Majority Owner with no input from the other members of the committee
  2. the Majority Owner has a history of misusing/mis-spending body corporate funds without committee or body corporate approval
  3. she has concerns about the most recent AGM, which included many motions proposed by the Majority Owner which are solely for his benefit and disadvantage other owners, and about how it was conducted
  4. she has concerns about the EGM called for October 2025
  5. regarding the make safe works to the electricity infrastructure and stairs, the Majority Owner has not discussed these or provided quotes to the committee, and
  6. there have been ongoing issues with flooding from Lot 5 controlled by the Majority Owner into Lot 3, and the Majority Owner has regularly discussed buying Lots 2 and 3 at below market price
  7. to ensure a well-functioning committee, she proposes that the Majority Owner's voting rights be restricted to a single vote and he be removed from the executive positions.
• [35] The applicant subsequently rejected the Majority Owner's claims that the electrical infrastructure had been made safe.[8] He says the mains line remains low-hanging and has not been made safe, owner-occupiers have seen no contractors at the scheme, and all that has occurred is that the switchboard has been padlocked. He notes there has been a new issue with the switchboard and Energex has advised that if called out and the defect notice has not been addressed, it may disconnect the power to the whole complex.
• [36] Moreover, the applicant says the staircase that provides access to his lot has not been made safe. He suggests the Majority Owner is misrepresenting contractors' assessment of the staircase. He contacted one of the contractors who inspected it and that contractor stated it could give way at any time. Although the contractor provided a quote for "make safe" remediation, the contractor told the applicant that he advised the applicant his view was that the whole staircase needed replacing and he advised the Majority Owner he would require a disclaimer of liability to be signed before he would perform the "make safe" remediation works. The applicant says the rusted stairs and rails are getting worse and it is no longer safe to use the staircase. As a result, he has had to move out of his lot. He also says the occupiers of Lot 3 have vacated that lot for safety reasons.
• [37] In response to the Majority Owner's comments about plumbing works at the scheme, the applicant says there are currently no issues with the sewerage lines at the scheme. Despite the reference to a large invoice for plumbing works, there is no evidence that any such works have been undertaken.
• [38] In terms of communication, functioning of the committee, and the body corporate's finances, the applicant says:

I have tried multiple times to get a response from [the Majority Owner] which has been ignored .... He has still refused to give the whole committee reports, photos, quotes, bank account details, allow us to include motions, we are unable to get repairs done as we don't know what is in the account, my belief is there is nothing.

• [39] Finally, the applicant says he and the other 2 minority lot owners have a plan to restore safety and compliance and organise the complex with proper quotes and proper reports. He seeks interim orders that the Majority Owner be removed from the committee and that the three ordinary members of the committee temporarily assume the vacant executive roles.

• [40] Although the application, subsequent submissions, and my investigations raise concerning issues about the administration and financial management of the body corporate, the applicant does not expressly claim that the AGM itself was invalid. Nor does the applicant challenge the validity of the election of the Majority Owner to the three executive positions.
• [41] Rather, the applicant is suggesting the Majority Owner is failing to comply with the legislation. He says the Majority Owner is making committee decisions unilaterally, is causing the body corporate to fail to perform its statutory functions and is breaching the code of conduct for committee members. The applicant says the 3 minority owners have a financial plan and that they are capable of administering and managing the body corporate in the best interests of all owners. The applicant's claims are echoed by the owners of the remaining 2 lots - also ordinary committee members - who support the request for further interim orders.
• [42] The Majority Owner denies the assertions of governance failures and insists that "the scheme is operating responsibly under majority control." He asks that the application for interim orders be dismissed.
• [43] Before making determinations about the interim orders sought, I will briefly describe some of the legal principles that are relevant to the dispute.

Financial management - budgets, contributions, and levies

• [44] 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]
• [45] In terms of contributions payable by owners, at each AGM, based on the adopted budgets the body corporate must set the total contributions to be levied and the per lot contributions.[12] It must also decide the number of instalments in which those contributions are to be paid, and set the date by which instalments are required.[13]
• [46] Where a body corporate has not made a sufficient provision for works or another liability, the body corporate must, by ordinary resolution -

(a) fix a special contribution to be levied on the owner of each lot towards the liability; and

(b) decide whether the contribution is to be paid in a single amount or in instalments and, if in instalments, the number of instalments; and

(c) fix the date on or before which payment of the single amount or each instalment is required.[14]

• [47] The community management statement for Everglades shows that the collective total of contribution schedule lot entitlement for lots owned or controlled by the Majority Owner is 28 of the 40 of the aggregate for the scheme, which equates to 70%.
• [48] When it comes to calculating how much each owner owes for a contribution, with few exceptions, the amount levied on the owner of each lot must be in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlements.[15] Insurance is one of the few exceptions.[16]

• [49] The Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control the common property for the benefit of owners and comply with the regulations about common property.[17] The body corporate must maintain common property in good condition and, in certain schemes must also maintain structural elements in a structurally sound condition.[18] Owners in turn must maintain their lots in good condition.[19]
  • [50] The statutory duty to maintain is one of strict liability. Maintenance must be undertaken as soon as the building or part of it falls into disrepair or is not operating properly.[20]
  • [51] Critically, a body corporate cannot avoid or defer required work because it has not budgeted for the work, has insufficient funds, or it has other priorities. If it does not have sufficient funds to finance required maintenance works, it must call a general meeting and exercise its power to set a special contribution to raise the necessary funds.[21]
  • [52] Adjudicators have also held that potential plans to terminate an aging scheme will not justify delaying or avoiding maintenance works that the body corporate is responsible for under the legislation.[22]

• [53] Members of the committee, including ordinary members, the chairperson, secretary, and treasurer, must be elected or appointed in the way provided for in the legislation.
• [54] For Everglades, the Standard Module governs how committee members must be chosen, how many members must be chosen, the term of committee members (including how committee members may be removed from their positions), and how vacant positions on the committee may be filled.[23]
• [55] The committee is given the power to make certain decisions, including decisions about spending funds, on behalf of the body corporate. When the committee is the decision maker, the committee is acting as a representative of the body corporate. In that capacity, the committee has a statutory obligation to act reasonably.[24] A committee must also act in good faith and in the interests of the body corporate.[25]
• [56] Committee members are individually bound by the code of conduct to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of the body corporate when performing their duties as voting members of the committee.[26]
• [57] A committee must exercise its decision-making powers in the way required by the legislation. A motion at a committee meeting is decided by the majority of votes of the voting members present and entitled to vote on the motion.[27] Each voting member of the committee present and entitled to vote has 1 vote per motion.[28] This one vote per committee member applies even where a single person holds more than one executive position.[29]
• [58] The committee may authorise spending only in the way permitted by the legislation.[30] Contrary to the Majority Owner's submission, there is no provision empowering a chairperson to unilaterally authorise spending, even in an emergency.
• [59] Where a body corporate does not have a BC Manager, the legislation provides that there must be two signatories to authorise payments from the body corporate's bank accounts.[31] For Everglades, this means at least two committee members must be authorised to operate the bank account.[32]

• [60] In terms of financial management, the minutes from the most recent AGM show that the body corporate failed to pass either an administrative or sinking fund budget. It also failed to set contribution levies. The Majority Owner, in his capacity as secretary, advised that the body corporate has $0 in its bank account and that he is the sole authorised signatory to its bank account. A text from the most recent BC Manager suggests the body corporate owes it money.
• [61] Another lot owner says over the past 4 years, the Majority Owner has on multiple occasions unilaterally authorised the spending of body corporate funds with no committee involvement and, in some cases, with no clear evidence that the works were the responsibility of the body corporate.
  • [62] In terms of the status of urgent maintenance works at the scheme the Majority Owner has represented that:
    1. the switchboard is "currently safe and secured"
    2. "two licensed contractors have inspected the front staircase", a loose feature bar (non-structural) was removed to make the area safe, and both contractors confirmed there is "no immediate danger", and
    3. certain plumbing works have been undertaken in the past 6 months to "address common property issues."
  • [63] In response to my further investigations, the Majority Owner provided a "make-safe statement" from the contractor (a licensed carpenter) that he says did minor repairs to the staircase to make it safe. In light of photographs of the staircase provided by the applicant, I investigated by requiring information to be provided by contractors who inspected the staircase and the contractor who provided the statement. The contractor who provided the statement holds a QBCC carpentry license, has 20 years of experience, and says he is qualified to provide an opinion about the status of the staircase. The contractor says it remains his professional opinion that the corrosion to the staircase is localised and superficial and considers "the staircase to be safe for pedestrian use pending comprehensive remediation."
  • [64] The Majority Owner continues to claim that the scheme is not dysfunctional and assertions of governance failures are not supported by evidence. He says the motions to be considered by the body corporate at the EGM called for 16 October 2025 will address issues with financial management and maintenance works.
  • [65] The applicant, however, refutes these representations. He says the low-hanging mains cable (Interim Order 1(b) in Everglades 1) has not been made safe and provides photos from October that he says demonstrate that the staircase has not been made safe.
• [66] I am not persuaded by the Majority Owner's arguments. I am satisfied at this preliminary stage on reasonable grounds and for purposes of considering interim orders that:

1. The Majority Owner is purporting to represent and make decisions on behalf of the committee and the body corporate without communicating with the other members of the committee. 2. Despite holding multiple positions on the committee, the Majority Owner has only one vote on committee motions and cannot control the decisions of the committee. 3. Regardless of the AGM minutes - which were prepared by the former BC Manager - showing the election of committee members, the Majority Owner has unilaterally decided that one of the members of the committee was not properly elected. 4. One contractor (a metal fabricator) who inspected the staircase wrote to the Majority Owner stating:

(i) he would need to allow "a full day for 2 guys minimum" for the make safe works to the staircase > > (ii) that he could not send an email saying the staircase is safe "when it could give way at anytime", and > > (iii) in response to my investigations, the same contractor stated from his brief observation that "the staircase appeared to be in poor condition and requires replacement by a qualified professional."

1. I cannot reconcile the "make-safe statement" from the carpenter with recent photographs of the staircase provided by the applicant nor with his statement that the staircase is safe pending "comprehensive" remediation. The photos show substantial corrosion (which appears well beyond surface rust) to posts and base plates as well as bolts either missing or not secured to structures. I am reasonably satisfied from the photos and the contractors comment that the staircase needs "comprehensive remediation" that the minor repairs to the staircase have not made it safe. 2. The applicant has arranged for a welder to attend the site and inspect the staircase. 3. Although the electrical switchboard has been locked to make it secure and quotes for a new switchboard have been obtained, I am reasonably satisfied the low-hanging electricity mains cable has not been made safe. 4. Although an EGM has been called for 16 October 2025, there are questions whether the EGM has been properly noticed. It also appears at this preliminary stage that the EGM notice as amended continues to be defective and/or conflict with the legislation in several respects. For example, it proposes a motion that a special contribution (special levy) by made by owners which:

(i) purports to relate generally to urgent repairs and maintenance including a replacement switchboard, and > > (ii) is not related to insurance yet the amount of the special levy is calculated in a way that is not proportionate to the contribution schedule lot entitlements

1. It appears at this stage that of the 3 quotes to replace the electrical switchboard, only one includes a provision for a "riser" to lift the mains cable to the regulation height, and was the only quote from an electrician (Plug) that actually inspected the site.

1. The EGM notice also includes a motion proposing the appointment of a new committee member when there does not appear to be any vacancy on the committee. 2. I accept the representations and email evidence that the EGM notice and agenda fail to include motions proposed by other lot owners and/or the committee. 3. Since the BC Manager's contract expired, in contravention of the Act, there is only one person authorised as the signatory on the body corporate's bank account.

• [67] For those reasons, I am satisfied that the applicant has raised serious legal questions with a sufficient likelihood of success about whether the Majority Owner, in his roles as chairperson secretary, and treasurer, is causing the body corporate to fail to comply with the legislation.
• [68] I am also satisfied that the applicant has raised serious legal questions whether the Majority Owner is purporting to:
  1. unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the committee
  2. organise works and spending without committee or body corporate approval
  3. to preclude other committee members from taking reasonable steps to obtain quotes for necessary maintenance works at the scheme, and
  4. set body corporate contributions in a way that does not comply with the legislation.

Interim orders that are necessary in the circumstances

• [69] Even where serious legal issues have been raised, interim orders are only granted if an adjudicator is satisfied on reasonable grounds that such orders are necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances. To make an interim order that is just and equitable, adjudicators also consider how an interim order could inconvenience or harm the respective parties in view of different outcomes on the application for final orders.
• [70] Interim orders are commonly issued in the form of injunctive relief to preserve the status quo. Those types of interim orders restrain a respondent from taking certain action while final orders are pending. In contrast, the remaining interim orders sought by the applicant would change the status quo.
• [71] Specifically, the applicant asks for interim orders that, pending adjudication of the application for final orders:
  1. the Majority Owner be temporarily removed from his positions as chairperson, secretary, and treasurer
  2. the owner of Lot 2, currently an ordinary member of the committee, be temporarily appointed to the positions of chairperson and secretary, and
  3. a person acting under power of attorney for the owner of Lot 7 be appointed as treasurer.
• [72] In this case, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the nature and urgency of the circumstances - the Majority Owner's failure to communicate with and to make decisions as part the committee and the body corporate's failure to comply with several of its fundamental and critical statutory obligations - warrant some form of interim order.
• [73] In terms of the balance of harm, the Majority Owner was validly appointed at the AGM and is entitled to serve as the chairperson, treasurer, and secretary for the body corporate. It would disturb the status quo to remove him from those positions prior to a determination of the application for final orders. In any event, where he only has one vote on each motion to be decided by the committee, he does not control the decisions of the committee.
• [74] Furthermore, acting together, the 3 ordinary members of the committee have the power to call:
  1. a meeting of the committee to consider motions,[33]
  2. for the committee to consider motions outside a committee meeting through votes outside committee meetings,[34] and
  3. a general meeting.[35]
• [75] In the circumstances, where the 3 ordinary members of the committee already have the above powers and the Majority Owner does not control the decisions of the committee, I do not consider an interim order that the Majority Owner be temporarily removed from his positions as chairperson, secretary, and treasurer is necessary or warranted.
• [76] However, I must still address the serious questions raised about the body corporate's continuing failures to meet its responsibilities in maintaining aspects of the common property that are in obvious need of repair.
• [77] In terms of common property maintenance and the make safe works that are urgently required to both the staircase and the electrical infrastructure, I made interim orders in Everglades 1 requiring the body corporate to undertake make safe works. The applicant says, and I am reasonably satisfied that, the make safe works have not been undertaken.
• [78] Where the electrical infrastructure is concerned, the agenda for the October EGM includes a motion proposing that the body corporate accept a quote from an electrician to completely replace the main switchboard. At least one of those quotes ($13,750) appears to address all the safety concerns and was provided after an inspection. That quote is comparable in price to a quote obtained by the applicant. The agenda for the EGM also includes a motion proposing that the body corporate raise a special levy that would be sufficient to fund those works.
• [79] To comply with the legislation, the special contribution must be levied on the owners of each lot in proportion to their contribution schedule lot entitlements. This means the lots owned or controlled by the Majority Owner will be collectively responsible for 70% of the total special contribution.
• [80] In these circumstances, I consider it would be premature to vary Interim Order 2 about the electricity infrastructure at this time. However, I retain jurisdiction and power to vary that interim order. To the extent the body corporate fails at the impending EGM to pass a motion to authorise the required works to the electricity infrastructure and to pass the appropriate special contribution to fund those works, the applicant may apply for the interim order to be varied or an owner may make an application to have the motions deemed passed.
• [81] The staircase is a different matter. As explained above, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds for the purposes of interim orders that the staircase remains unsafe.
• [82] In terms of the type of interim orders are just and equitable in the circumstances, I am not persuaded that removing the Majority Owner from his committee roles would necessarily assist the applicant in having the staircase made safe. Rather than make the new interim order sought by the applicant, I will instead consider varying Interim Order 3.
• [83] The legislation gives an adjudicator express power to make orders appointing an administrator to assist the enforcement of another order made for the application.[36] An adjudicator's order appointing an administrator will define the powers that are being given to the administrator.[37]
• [84] Although adjudicators are empowered to appoint an administrator, the legislation does not describe the criteria nor any factors an adjudicator should consider when determining whether it would be appropriate to make such an order. Certainly, the effects of appointing an administrator require consideration. Those effects include that such an order shifts at least some of the decision-making to the administrator and, where an administrator charges for their services, the costs of the administrator will be borne by the body corporate.
• [85] In this case, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is necessary given the nature and urgency of the circumstances to vary Interim Order 3 from Everglades 1 to appoint the owner of Lot 2 and a representative of Lot 7 (Mark Boys) as administrators with certain limited powers to assist the enforcement of Interim Order 3 about the repairs to the staircase. In making this interim order, I have considered that the shifts in decision-making are limited and administrative in nature and that there are no administrator costs to be borne by the body corporate.
• [86] Accordingly, Interim Order 3 is varied to provide that those persons are empowered to:

1. obtain a quote(s) from an appropriate tradesperson to perform the remediation works necessary to make safe the staircase to Lot 7 (Staircase Quotes) 2. call a general meeting of the body corporate and propose the following motions:

(i) that the body corporate resolve to accept a Staircase Quote, and > > (ii) that the body corporate fix a special contribution, by ordinary resolution and in a way that complies with section 162(2) of the Standard Module, which is be levied on the owners of each lot in proportion to their contribution schedule lot entitlements to meet the liability for the Staircase Quote, and

1. on behalf of the body corporate and complying with section 163 of the Standard Module, issue owners with notices of the special contributions payable for the staircase works.

• [87] I note that the committee and owners are entitled to propose other motions to be considered by the body corporate at the general meeting that may be called for the staircase works.
• [88] In addition, where operation of the body corporate's bank account is concerned, I am reasonably satisfied that the body corporate is contravening the Act by only having one authorised signatory on its bank accounts. The Majority Owner says he has proposed a motion at the October EGM to appoint a new committee member (a nominee associated with his lots) and that, if appointed, it he proposes that the new member be the second authorised signatory on the body corporate's bank account. However, there appear to be potential issues with the validity of the Majority Owner's motion to appoint a new committee member.
• [89] In those circumstances and where the committee has the power to authorise one of its existing members to act as the second signatory, in my view, the balance of harm weighs in favour of making an interim order (Interim Order 6) that the current committee must authorise one of its current members to act as the second signatory for the body corporate bank account.

• [90] For the reasons given above, I have varied my earlier interim orders and made a further interim order.
• [91] The application is now referred back to the Commissioner.[38] If the dispute is not resolved and the applicant does not withdraw the application, the application for final orders will remain to be determined. The dispute may then be finally resolved by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from all affected parties. I note that I retain jurisdiction and the power to extend, vary, or cancel the interim orders.
• [92] In view of the serious state of the body corporate's finances and aspects of the common property, I make the following additional observations and statements.
• [93] Firstly, this is a small scheme and there is clearly conflict between the minority owners and the Majority Owner. It is apparent that the body corporate is not performing some of the most fundamental of its legislative functions. This cannot continue.
• [94] The body corporate must perform required maintenance works at the scheme. It must also pass budgets, set contributions, and collect those contributions in order to finance those works. It may need to fix an interim contribution[39] and it is clear it will need to fix one or more special contributions to raise funds so that it can undertake necessary works.
• [95] Where a lot owner does not pay a properly noticed contribution by the date for payment, the body corporate may recover the amount of the contribution as a debt.[40] It may also recover as a debt any penalties for non-payment, and any recovery costs reasonably incurred by the body corporate in recovering the amount.
• [96] Secondly, the body corporate remains obligated to comply with the interim orders. The Act provides for the enforcement of adjudicators' orders.[41] For an order other than to pay an amount, a copy of the order and a sworn statement by a person in whose favour the order is made stating that an obligation in the order has not been performed can be registered with the Magistrates Court.[42] The order is then enforceable as an order of the court. The court can appoint an administrator to perform obligations under the order.
• [97] Thirdly, to the extent disputes at the scheme persist or new disputes arise, the parties are encouraged to try to resolve those disputes themselves. To do so, the committee may make decisions that are within its powers to make or it can resolve to call general meetings and propose motions for body corporate consideration.
• [98] Individual owners may also propose motions to be considered by the committee or by the body corporate at a general meeting. For example, an owner may wish to propose a motion that the body corporate engage a new BC Manager.
• [99] If a dispute is not resolved by a committee or body corporate decision, a party may make an application for conciliation or adjudication of the dispute. For example, if the body corporate fails to pass the necessary motions to approve the budgets, contributions, and maintenance works, a lot owner may apply for orders deeming the motions passed. Similarly, if an owner believes the body corporate acted unreasonably in deciding to pass a motion, an owner may make an application seeking an order that the resolution be deemed void.
• [100] Fourthly, I remind the parties that it is an offence to provide false or misleading information or documents to an adjudicator.18 A person who believes this provision has been contravened may make a complaint to a Magistrate under the Justices Act 1886. The person making such a complaint would need to show the information was in fact false or misleading, that the person stating information knew it was false or misleading, and that the statement was false or misleading in a material particular.19 Although an adjudicator does not have power to impose a penalty, an adjudicator's investigations and findings may be relevant to the Magistrate's consideration of a complaint.[43]
• [101] Finally, decisions of the body corporate can only be made by the committee or the body corporate at general meetings. Despite representing and controlling the majority of lots in the scheme and despite his election as chairperson, secretary, and treasurer, I remind the Majority Owner that he does not have the power to unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the body corporate. He can only participate in body corporate decision-making by voting as a committee member (one vote) or by voting at a general meeting as the owner or representative of an owner of lots.
• [102] I caution the Majority Owner that, regardless of his control of 70% of the contribution lot entitlements and any future plans or preferences he may have for the scheme, including acquisition of additional lots, termination or sale to a developer, he is not entitled to cause the body corporate to fail to maintain the common property or to cause it to fail to administer its finances in accordance with the legislation.

[1] Section 276 of the Act

[2] The application was prepared, and information provided, by a representative of the applicant.

[3] Section 227(1)(b) of the Act

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

[5] Section 279(1) of the Act

[7] Although an applicant must identify a genuine legal issue to be decided, the granting of an interim order by itself does not indicate whether or not an applicant will ultimately be successful on their application for final orders.

[8] The applicant provided me with several "updates" following the First Interim Order. Although uninvited, they contain information relevant to the remaining orders sought and raise concerning issues about the administration of the body corporate's finances and common property.

[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] Sections 162(1) of the Standard Module

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

[15] Section 162(5) of the Standard Module

[16] For example, section 201 of the Standard Module provides a body corporate may in some circumstances adjust contributions payable for insurance premiums.

[18] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[19] Section 160 of the Act and section 211(3) of the Standard Module

[20] See e.g., Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 67 and Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 82

[21] See e.g., Suncoast Resort [2023] QBCCMCmr 467 at [52]

[22] See id. at [53]; see also President [2024] QBCCMCmr 221

[23] See e.g., Sections 40-51 of the Standard Module

[25] See e.g., Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 (Palm Springs), at [56]-[74]

[26] See Section 101B and Schedule 1A (at 2 and 3) of the Act

[27] See Section 65(2) of the Standard Module. Motions decided by the committee outside a meeting are also passed if the majority of the committee members vote in favour of the motion.

[28] See Section 65(4) of the Standard Module

[29] See Section 65(5) of the Standard Module

[30] See Section 172 of the Standard Module

[33] See Section 54(2) of the Standard Module

[34] See Section 68 of the Standard Module

[35] See Section 82(1) of the Standard Module

[38] See Section 279(4) of the Act, but noting an adjudicator's jurisdiction and power to extend, vary, or cancel an interim order. See id. at Section 279(2)(b)

[39] See Section 162(3) of the Standard Module

[40] See Section 166(1) of the Standard Module

[43] See e.g., Riviera Southbank Apartments [2023] QBCCMCmr 348 at [34]- [36]