EMERGENCY ORDER - whether appropriate to order that the body corporate provide the applicant with a compliant body corporate certificate; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - whether to order body corporate to refund payments made by lot owner or reimburse owner for funds expended on maintenance works that were responsibility of body corporate.

Act, s 205(4), 205(6), 205AAA, and 276(1); Standard Module, ss 162(5), 233, and 233AA

1. Within 3 business days of this order, the Committee for the Body Corporate for Everglades CTS 14058, must:

a) prepare a new information certificate that complies substantially with section 233AA of the Standard Module (New Certificate) > > b) decide by a vote outside committee meeting (VOCM) to approve the contents of the New Certificate, with the committee specifically considering whether to approve the inclusion of any additional information in the New Certificate that is not required by section 233AA of the Standard Module, and > > c) issue the certificate to the applicant.

2. Within 5 business days of this order, the Committee must:

a) consider and decide by VOCM whether to reimburse the applicant the sum of $308 for funds he expended on body corporate maintenance works.

3. Within 48 hours of the applicant's representative supplying his bank details to the committee, the Body Corporate for Everglades must remit the sum of $114.10 to the applicant, being $30 for an expedited body corporate certificate that was not provided within 24 hours and $84.10 for a Form 34 certificate that is not relevant to this scheme.

• [1] The applicant wishes to sell his lot. Recent amendments to the body corporate legislation provide that an interested person, including a lot owner, may make a written request to a body corporate for a certificate giving financial and other information about a lot included in the scheme. The certificate must include certain specified information.
• [2] The applicant says he asked the body corporate in writing for a body corporate certificate and paid the required fee for the certificate. He says the body corporate was required by the new legislation to provide the certificate within 5 days of the request and payment. He says it failed to do so. He also says it failed to provide the certificate within 24 hours after he paid the additional fee to have the certificate provided on an expedited basis.
• [3] The applicant says time is of the essence and the body corporate's failure to issue the required certificate is a compromising his ability to sell his lot and is causing him financial harm. He also says the certificate that was ultimately provided is defective and contains unsubstantiated information. He is seeking an order that the body corporate issue a compliant certificate.
• [4] The applicant is also seeking a refund of a payment to the body corporate ($84.10) for an information certificate that is not applicable to this scheme (a Form 34 certificate) as well as reimbursement from the body corporate for his expenditure ($308) on emergency maintenance works that were a body corporate responsibility.
• [5] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the applicant paid the body corporate the prescribed fee for an expedited certificate but did not receive it with the required 24 hour period. Accordingly, he is entitled to a refund of the fee paid. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that in compiling the certificate, the chairperson failed to act reasonably.
• [6] In the particular circumstances of this application, I have made orders that the committee decide on the information to be included in the certificate.
• [7] To be very clear, these orders are specific to the circumstances of this particular case and they are not intended, nor should the orders be interpreted to mean, that I consider a committee is necessarily required to decide the contents of an information certificate.

• [8] 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.
• [9] The applicant is the owner of Lot 7.
• [10] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Everglades.

• [11] If the Commissioner reasonably considers an application relates to emergency circumstances, she is authorised by section 243A of the Act to immediately refer the application to an adjudicator without giving affected parties notice of the application or an opportunity to comment.
• [12] Among other things, the applicant says that the body corporate's failure to provide the information certificate (which he refers to as a Form 33 certificate) in the time and as required by the Act is compromising the impending sale of the lot. Further, that the failure of the body corporate to provide the certificate has caused and will continue to cause the owner significant financial detriment. Where there was sufficient evidence to support those claims, I understand the Commissioner's delegate considered in the particular circumstances of this application that there were emergency circumstances.
• [13] 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 about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act.[1]
• [14] 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. The applicant has a direct interest in the dispute and therefore has standing to make the application.[3] I am satisfied his legal representatives made reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute before making this application.
• [15] This application concerns a dispute about the performance of duties by the body corporate and it involves a claimed contravention of the Act. I am satisfied it falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[4]
• [16] An adjudicator must investigate an application to decide whether it would be appropriate to make an order on an application.[5] Notwithstanding that an application is referred for determination without notice being given to the respondent and other owners, when investigating an application and deciding whether to make orders, an adjudicator must observe the principles of natural justice.[6]
• [17] In the circumstances, I was satisfied that I had sufficient information on the face of the application to make determinations about the first order sought. In the interests of natural justice, however, I provided the respondent body corporate, through its committee - which comprises of a representative of an owner from each of the lots in the scheme - with a very brief opportunity to comment on the orders sought.

• [18] As background, the applicant notes that there is a history of conflict at the scheme with the person who represents the owners of the majority of lots in the scheme and currently holds the roles of chairperson, secretary, and treasurer (for ease of reference, I will refer to that person as the Chairperson).[7]
• [19] After this application had been referred to me, the applicant provided an update about the provision of the body corporate certificate. He advised that the chairperson of the body corporate did provide a certificate after close of business on the 5th day. The applicant says, however, that certain information in the certificate is either defective or unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
• [20] The applicant says he first requested a Form 33 certificate in writing in August 2025 but he was told at the time by the Chairperson that he would have to wait. In addition, he says the Chairperson closed the body corporate bank account without informing the committee which meant the applicant had no way of paying the fee for the Form 33.
• [21] The applicant also says that:

1. he is elderly and needs to urgently sell his lot for health and financial reasons 2. since August 2025, he has repeatedly asked the body corporate in writing to issue a Form 33 certificate but he had no way of paying the body corporate the prescribed fee because the Chairperson had changed the body corporate's bank account 3. sometime after August 2025, without informing the committee, the Chairperson opened a new bank account in the name of the body corporate 4. it was not until 8 November 2025 that the Chairperson issued the applicant with a body corporate invoice for $84.10 for a Form 33 certificate, which the applicant paid that day 5. at or around the same time, the Chairperson also issued the applicant with a body corporate invoice for $84.10 for a Form 34 certificate, which the applicant paid that day 6. the applicant paid the additional $30 and emailed the receipt to the Chairperson with a request that an expedited Form 33 certificate be provided in 24 hours 7. the body corporate's failure to provide a Form 33 has already caused him financial harm in the form of:

(i) an earlier sale of his lot failing to proceed due to the lack of a Form 33 certificate from the body corporate > > (ii) spending funds on legal fees to require the body corporate to fix urgent safety issues at the scheme, and > > (iii) spending funds on legal fees for the purpose of obtaining the Form 33 certificate

1. another potential buyer will not proceed without a Form 33 2. the Chairperson, who collectively owns or controls entities that own 4 of the 7 lots in the scheme (representing 28 of the 40 contribution schedule lot entitlements i.e., 70%), has a history of trying to purchase the remaining lots in the scheme for less than market value and has been calling the real estate agent selling the applicant's lot 3. the Chairperson, through majority control or otherwise, has caused the body corporate to:

(i) refuse to have the building inspected by a qualified building and pest inspection > > (ii) "self-manage" the scheme without the assistance of a body corporate manager > > (iii) change bank accounts without the knowledge or approval of the committee > > (iv) hold meetings (both committee and general) without considering motions properly submitted by owners and committee members > > (v) fail to attend to urgent maintenance works to common property, some involving health and safety, that the body corporate is responsible for, and > > (vi) to reimburse the Chairperson for his purported expenditure on items that were the responsibility of the body corporate but refuse to reimburse the applicant for $308 spent on emergency repairs to the common property switchboard.

1. at 5.15 pm on 14 November 2025, the Chairperson, purportedly on behalf of the body corporate, provided a "certificate" to the applicant's lawyer, which certificate the applicant says:

(i) contains inaccurate information about the ownership of lots > > (ii) contains assertions about defects at the scheme (including relating to Lot 7), which representations directly contradict the Chairperson's prior statements about the condition of the scheme and which claims are unsupported > > (iii) represents a breach by the Chairperson of the code of conduct for voting members of the committee either historically by concealing issues from the committee or presently by mispresenting issues now, and > > (iv) is designed to sabotage or jeopardise the applicant from selling his lot, and

1. the above has caused the applicant (and his family) enormous stress which has been detrimental to the applicant's health.[8]

• [22] The applicant seeks 3 emergency final orders. Specifically, that an adjudicator order the body corporate to:
  1. provide the applicant with a body corporate information certificate that complies with the legislation
  2. refund the owner for a Form 34 certificate that was paid for but is not relevant to this body corporate, and
  3. reimburse the applicant the sum of $308, which was the sum spent by the applicant on emergency works to the electricity switchboard at the scheme, which works are the responsibility of the body corporate.
• [23] I am satisfied that in the particular circumstances of this application that the first order sought is sufficiently urgent for me to consider making orders about the provision of a body corporate certificate with little to no notice to the body corporate.
• [24] Although I do not consider that the others orders sought are urgent, I am satisfied that the applicant is clearly entitled to the second order and the third is a minor financial decision that can and should be made by the committee. I have made orders accordingly.
• [25] The application is not particularly well structured and parts of it are difficult to follow. This was understandable given the urgency. The applicant subsequently advised that the body corporate had provided an information certificate. He claims the certificate was late, defective and/or misleading. That changed the landscape of the dispute somewhat. As will become clearer in the reasoning below, I am satisfied the application remains urgent.
• [26] I consider that, on a fair reading of the materials, the applicant is making three arguments about the body corporate certificate:
  • - Argument 1 - that the body corporate contravened the legislation by not providing the certificate within the required timeframe
  • - Argument 2 - even if it was provided in the required time frame, the certificate provided by the body corporate is defective, and/or
  • - Argument 3 - the body corporate (primarily through its controlling owner, the chairperson) failed to act reasonably in discharging its statutory duty to issue the body corporate certificate and/or by exercising its discretion to include unsubstantiated and non-mandatory information in the certificate.
• [27] These arguments involve aspects of new legislation as well as pre-existing and well established duties of the body corporate. I will briefly describe the applicable legal principles before making findings of fact and determinations for the dispute presented.

• [28] Recent changes to seller disclosure rules and body corporate legislation became effective as of 1 August 2025. Those changes are relevant to the dispute and I will describe those first. I will then briefly review the body corporate's functions and duties, including the duty to act reasonably in making decisions to discharge its functions and when exercising discretionary decision-making power.

• [29] Pursuant to new property legislation effective as of 1 August 2025, a seller of a lot in a body corporate scheme is now subject to increased disclosure requirements. In addition to impacting lot owners selling their lots, concurrent amendments to body corporate legislation mean the new seller disclosure provisions also have consequences for bodies corporate.
• [30] As part of the seller disclosure changes, the body corporate legislation was amended to enable an interested person (including a lot owner) to ask the body corporate in writing for a body corporate certificate containing information about matters specified in the legislation.
• [31] Provided the written request is in writing and is accompanied by the prescribed fee, the body corporate is required to provide a complying body corporate certificate within 5 days.
• [32] Specifically, section 205 of the Act, which is titled "Information to be given to interested persons" now provides in the relevant part that:

(4) An interested person may ask the body corporate for a certificate under this section (a body corporate certificate) giving financial and other information about a lot included in the scheme.

(5) The request must be in writing and accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulation module applying to the scheme.

(6) Within 5 business days after receiving the request, the body corporate must give the person a body corporate certificate in the approved form for the lot.

• [33] In turn, the applicable regulation module, in this case, the Standard Module, provides in section 233 that the relevant fees for information include:

(2) For section 205(5) of the Act, the fee prescribed is -

(a) if the person requesting the body corporate certificate for the lot has requested, and been given, a body corporate certificate for the same lot within the previous 3 months - 65.24 fee units; or

(b) otherwise - 76.75 fee units.

(3) A request for a body corporate certificate under section 205(4) of the Act may include a request for the certificate to be given within 24 hours.

(4) A request for a body corporate certificate that includes a request made under subsection (3) must be accompanied by a priority fee of 27.35 fee units.

(5) The priority fee payable under subsection (4) -

(a) is in addition to the fee payable under subsection (2); and

(b) must be refunded if the requested body corporate certificate is not given within 24 hours.

• [34] Where the "fee unit" in Queensland as of 1 July 2025 is $1.096, this means the prescribed fee currently payable to the body corporate by an owner requesting a Form 33 for the first time is $84.10.[9] The additional priority fee payable for a request that a certificate be issued within 24 hours is currently $30.[10]
• [35] Regarding the information to be provided in the body corporate certificate, the Act provides in section 205AAAA that the "approved form" for the certificate:

(a) must include provision for information about the matters prescribed by the regulation module applying to the scheme; and

(b) may include other matters.

• [36] The Standard Module then prescribes in section 233A the list of matters the body corporate must include in its certificate. The list of mandatory matters includes information and details about, the lot and plan of subdivision, the scheme, lot entitlements, annual and special contributions payable, insurance, service contracts, by-laws, and the body corporate's finances.
• [37] An approved form - Form 33 - has been prepared for use by bodies corporate.[11] The Form 33 is designed to cover the list of matters a body corporate must provide information about in order to comply with the new legislation.
• [38] A body corporate is not obligated to use the Form 33 but may create their own certificate. If it chooses to create its own certificate, the self-generated certificate must substantially comply with section 233AA of the Standard Module. Further, section 48A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 provides that:

(2) If a form prescribed or approved under an Act requires -

(a) the form to be completed in a specified way; or

(b) specified information or documents to be included in, attached or given with the form; or

(c) the form, or information or documents included in, attached to or given with the form, to be verified in a specified way;

the form is not properly completed unless the requirement is complied with.

• [39] A body corporate has a statutory obligation to act reasonably when making decisions, including when carrying out functions given to it under the Act.[12] Committees also have a statutory duty to act reasonably when making decisions on behalf of the body corporate.[13]
• [40] These duties to act reasonably apply when a body corporate or its committee is exercising a discretionary decision-making power. Individual voting members of the committee are also bound to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of the body corporate.[14]

• [41] Before considering each of the applicant's arguments, I will first make some findings of fact.

• [42] I am satisfied from the documents included as part of the application that:
  1. On 11 August 2025, the applicant's representative first made a request in writing to the committee, care of the Chairperson, that the body corporate issue "a form 33/34 BC certificate" at a cost to the applicant of $84.10 for the Form 33 and an additional $30 for the priority "Form 34". At that time, he expressly asked for a link to pay both the prescribed fee for the body corporate certificate and the priority fee. He also expressly noted that he sought the certificate in 24 hours and that time was of the essence.
  2. On 12 August 2025, the Chairperson responded that the body corporate manager's contract was concluded and it would be premature to hold a committee meeting. The Chairperson wrote that "I will also ensure that statutory requirements relating to the Form 33/34 request and any safety matters are addressed promptly once the Body Corporate management status is confirmed."
  3. In an email dated 5 September 2025 to the Chairperson, the applicant's representative asked again about the Form 33 certificate noting the Chairperson had "expressed in writing" he was unable to provide it. The applicant's representative later wrote again.
  4. An email dated 20 October 2025 from a committee member appointed to administer an interim order by, among other things, issuing a notice of special levy to fund works to maintain a common property staircase[15] wrote to all owners stated that the body corporate's bank account bank details on a recent notice of special levy were incorrect as she had been notified by the Chairperson that account was closed. She advised that the special levy notices would be re-issued once the Chairperson advised the new account details.
  5. It appears that the special levy notices were then reissued on 23 October 2025 with the new bank details.
  6. On Sunday 9 November 2025, the applicant paid the body corporate the prescribed fee of $84.10 for a body corporate certificate.
  7. On Monday 10 November 2025, understanding he was also required to pay a fee of $84.10 for a Form 34 certificate, the applicant transferred an additional $84.10 into the body corporate's new account.
  8. On Tuesday 11 November 2025, the applicant transferred an additional $30 to the body corporate as the priority fee for an expedited (within 24 hours) certificate from the body corporate.
• [43] Although I invited the Chairperson on behalf of the committee to respond to the orders sought in the application, no comments were provided about the certificate.
• [44] I am satisfied from the materials provided by the applicant after the application had been referred to adjudication that:
  1. By an email time-stamped 5.15 pm on Friday 14 November 2025, the Chairperson sent via email to solicitors for the applicant attaching what was described as a "final, signed, and complete Body Corporate Certificate (Form 33) for Everglades CTS 14058 - Lot 7, issued today, 14 November 2025."
  2. Given New South Wales is now on daylight savings and there is a possibility the Chairperson is located there, it is unclear whether the time stamp on the email is NSW time (which would be an hour earlier in Queensland).
  3. The body corporate information certificate provided by the Chairperson was not in the form of a Form 33 certificate but appears instead to be a certificate generated for the body corporate by the Chairperson.

• [45] For me to be satisfied that the body corporate contravened section 205(4) and (6) of the Act by failing to provide the required information certificate within the mandatory 5-day time frame, the applicant must demonstrate that:
  1. he submitted a request in writing to the body corporate that it issue a body corporate certificate (for ease of reference, a Form 33 request)
  2. he paid the prescribed fee, and
  3. the body corporate failed to provide the certificate within 5 business days of payment of the fee and the request.
• [46] Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the applicant made a Form 33 request in writing as early as 11 August 2025. As part of the request, he sought instructions where to pay the prescribed fee and clearly stated time was of the essence.
• [47] The applicant says that the Chairperson did not send instructions for payment until 8 November 2025. The applicant provides evidence that he paid the $84.10 prescribed fee on Sunday 9 November 2025. Although he did not provide a copy of the invoice, in light of the payment he made the next day, I accept it is more likely than not the instructions for payment of the fee were sent by the Chairperson on 8 November 2025.
• [48] The applicant also asserts that the Chairperson sent another fee payment instructions for a Form 34, which the applicant understood to be the priority fee for a certificate to be provided on an expedited basis (within 24 hours). I accept this representation as true because it explains and is consistent with the applicant's second payment of $84.10 for a Form 34. Where that form is designed for schemes regulated by a different module, the payment was not required and the body corporate has been unjustly enriched by it.
• [49] I am satisfied the applicant paid the prescribed fee on a Sunday night. I am satisfied the body corporate was on notice of the payment where the Chairperson had sent an invoice for the fee the day before, the "Account overview" provided by the Chairperson as part of the information certificate records the payment as received by the body corporate on 7 November 2025.
• [50] The relevant section thus required the body corporate to provide the certificate "within 5 business days." In this case, this meant the certificate was to be provided by no later than Friday 14 November 2025. A certificate was provided by that date. Although the close of a business day is not defined in the legislation, where the certificate was provided by 5.15pm - which could even be 4.15 pm - I am not satisfied in this case that the certificate was provided outside the statutory timeframe. In those circumstances, I decline to make an order declaring the body corporate contravened sections 205(4) and (6) of the Act.
• [51] However, the applicant also paid the $30 prescribed fee to have the certificate provided within 24hours. I am satisfied the certificate was not provided in that shorter time frame. Accordingly, pursuant to section 233(5)(b) of the Standard Module, he is entitled to a refund of that fee.

• [52] I understand that the applicant is also asserting that the certificate provided by the body corporate was defective because it included incorrect information. He alleges the list of owners' names included as part of the levy register are incorrect.
• [53] Section 233AA of the Standard Module does not appear to require the body corporate to include the body corporate roll listing the owners of other lots. Where the body corporate decides to include non-mandatory information, however, it should of course include the correct information.

• [54] The applicant is also suggesting that the body corporate (through its Chairperson) failed to act reasonably in discharging its statutory duty to issue the body corporate certificate by not providing bank account details for payment of the prescribed fee.
• [55] The applicant also claims the certificate issued by the body corporate on 14 November 2025 includes unsubstantiated claims about the condition of various aspects of the scheme (Additional Information). Regarding the Additional Information included in the certificate by the Chairperson, he says:
  1. the Additional Information is not mentioned nor substantiated in the body corporate minutes or in any of the correspondence with the former body corporate manager
  2. this is the first time many of these matters have been raised and there is no evidence to support the Additional Information
  3. the Chairperson has represented to the BCCM Office that there are no other issues
  4. if these are genuine issues, the Chairperson has breached the code of conduct for voting committee members by concealing them from the committee, and
  5. he considers the Chairperson purposefully included the Additional Information to jeopardise the sale of the lot and its value.
• [56] In my view, the applicant is claiming that the body corporate -through its Chairperson - acted unreasonably when it exercised the discretion afforded to it by Section 205AAAA of the Act to include the non-mandatory Additional Information in the certificate.
• [57] In my view, the compilation of a Form 33 or body corporate information certificate should be largely an administrative task involving the compilation of factual information from the body corporate's existing records. In the majority of cases, I would imagine such a task could be completed by a body corporate manager or an individual committee member. However, in this particular case, given the history of conflict at the scheme and the purported exercise by the Chairperson of the discretion to include non-mandatory information in the certificate, I am satisfied there are serious legal questions raised whether the body corporate would be acting reasonably if it included the Additional Information in the certificate.
• [58] In those circumstances, I consider it just and equitable to make an order that the committee be the body to decide on the contents of the certificate to be provided to the applicant, including whether the Additional Information should be included in the certificate.
• [59] Where time is of the essence in both the legislation and for the applicant, I have made orders requiring the committee to make its decisions quickly. Where the majority of the factual information required has already been compiled, I do not consider the short-time frame to be onerous or unreasonable.

• [60] Finally, I note I have considered the issue of procedural fairness. In this case, the application was referred by the Commissioner to adjudication on an emergency basis. As a result, the application has not yet been distributed to the body corporate committee or to individual owners. This means the body corporate, which is named as the respondent, and owners have not had a full opportunity to respond to the applicant's assertions or provide comments on the relief sought. This must be viewed in light of the following:
  1. A body corporate is now required by statute to provide an information certificate within 5 days to a requesting lot owner who pays the prescribed fee. In my view, this relatively short time frame imposed by parliament recognises that time is frequently of the essence in many property sales.
  2. As is clear from my findings above, I am satisfied that the body corporate has been on notice of the applicant's request for a body corporate information certificate since at least 11 August 2025. I am also satisfied that the change in the body corporate's bank accounts - which was outside his control - made it difficult for the applicant to pay the prescribed fee.
  3. The body corporate will be bound by the representations made in the certificate. The certificate should therefore be limited to factual information drawn from and supported by body corporate's records.
  4. My orders do not take the decision-making out of the hands of the body corporate. In this particular case, where the Chairperson unilaterally exercised the committee's discretion to include non-mandatory information in the certificate, and the accuracy of that information is disputed, I consider there to be an open question whether the body corporate acted reasonably. To address that issue, my orders are specifically designed to require the committee to make decisions about the contents of the information certificate to be issued to the applicant. In my opinion, the nature of the orders made ensures the body corporate is afforded procedural fairness and natural justice.
• [61] Regarding the two other orders sought by the applicant - for reimbursement/refund of amounts from the body corporate - I considered reserving my decision until the body corporate and all owners had an opportunity to provide their submissions. However, where the amounts sought are small, the applicant appears to be entitled to the funds (whether by law or in equity), and the committee has the power to make decisions about the claimed amounts, I am of the view it would be just and equitable and in the interests of all parties if the committee was required to make a decision about these payments at the same time it considers the contents of the certificate.

• [62] I have made orders for the reasons given above.
• [63] When complying with the orders and considering the information to be included in the certificate, the committee is reminded that:
  1. It must act reasonably in making decisions, including when exercising a discretion to include non-mandatory information in a body corporate information certificate, and
  2. Section 233AA of the standard module requires that the certificate include "the most recent statement of accounts prepared under section 175 [of the standard module]." It appears that the certificate provided by the Chairperson to the applicant on 14 November 2025 does not on its face, comply with this requirement.
• [64] The committee may wish to revisit the latter requirement to ensure the new certificate is compliant. Given the body corporate had a manager (BCM) up until early August 2025, it may wish to consider whether the BCM produced a set of accounts that would comply. Going forward, the committee is also reminded that the body corporate has an ongoing obligation to keep proper accounting records and comply with section 175 of the Standard Module.
• [65] I also remind the Chairperson he has only one vote as a committee member and I refer him to the section in the interim orders about committee voting and committee vacancies.[16]
• [66] In addition, I note with some concern that in the "Account overview" compiled by the Chairperson as part of the certificate, at "5.2 Special Levy" it is reported that "A special levy totalling $15,000 for staircase + electrical compliance was raised and apportioned evenly." If the special levy was in fact apportioned evenly between the lots - that is, $15,000 divided by 7 lots - then it does not comply with the legislation nor does it comply with my interim order.[17]
• [67] If in fact the levy was apportioned evenly (divided by 7 lots) rather than by the portion of contribution schedule lot entitlements (which for Lot 7, is 5/40 or 1/8th of the total amount of the special levy to be raised), the committee may need to reissue the special levy notices to correct the error and consider refunding any amount that was levied on Lot 7 or other owner in error.
• [68] In view of the body corporate's change in bank accounts and failure to provide the applicant with bank details in a timely manner so he could pay the prescribed fee, the committee may also wish to consider whether to reimburse the applicant for the costs of this application.
• [69] Finally, I note the Chairperson suggests the emergency repairs to the main switchboard that were paid for by the applicant were an owner responsibility on the grounds that "all sub-boards are owner responsibility." He does not offer any legal support for this view. When considering whether to reimburse the applicant for the $308 he expended on emergency repairs to the main switchboard, the committee must consider the relevant facts that:
  1. the main switchboard - including a sub-board - is common property utility infrastructure[18]
  2. the body corporate is generally obliged to maintain the common property in good condition[19]
• c. that adjudicators in similar circumstances have found the body corporate to be responsible for repairs and maintenance,[20] and

1. there is ample evidence that the entire switchboard is not in good condition and needs replacing.

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

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

[7] Interim orders have recently been made for an application about disputes at the scheme. See Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 310 and Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 350. The application for final orders about those disputes remains pending.

[8] Interim orders have recently been made for a separate application about disputes at the scheme. See Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 310 and Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 350.

[9] The amount being calculated as $1.096 x 76.75 = $84.118, which is then rounded to the nearest 5 cents (i.e., $84.10) pursuant to section 233(6) of the Standard Module.

[10] The amount being calculated as $1.096 x 27.35 = $29.9756, which is then rounded to the nearest 5 cents (i.e., $30).

[11] Form 33 is intended for use in all community titles schemes except those governed by the Specified Two-lot Schemes Module.

[13] See Section 101B and Schedule 1A of the Act

[15] See Interim Order 3 (as varied) in Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 350.

[16] See e.g., Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 350 at [66]

[17] See Interim Order 3 as varied in Everglades [2025] QBCCMCmr 350

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

[20] See e.g., Glen Oaks Estate [2025] QBCCMCmr 45