Galileo Tower [2025] QBCCMCmr 141 (1 May 2025)

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

Act, s 279; Standard Module, s 172

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application for interim orders is about body corporate decision-making concerning a handrail for a staircase that provides access to the common property pool at the scheme.
• [2] The applicant says she cannot safely access the pool because there is no handrail on the staircase. She says a health and safety report has identified that the lack of a handrail poses a safety risk. The applicant wants the body corporate to install a handrail and has proposed various options and quotes for the works, but the committee and/or the body corporate are yet to approve any specific works. The applicant seeks final orders about a specific proposal and quote for a handrail to be installed.
• [3] However, the applicant believes that the committee intends to make the decision about the handrail by passing a series of motions, with the spending for each separate motion below the committee limit. She says that would contravene the legislation. By this application, she is seeking an interim order restraining the committee from making decisions about the handrail in this way.
• [4] The committee opposes the interim orders sought. It says the applicant is a member of the committee and failed to attend its most recent meeting in February 2025. Had she done so, it says the dispute may have been resolved and this application avoided.
• [5] For the reasons that follow, I have dismissed the application for interim orders.

• [6] The scheme known as Galileo Tower CTS 14193 (Galileo Tower) is located in Hamilton. Galileo Tower is registered as a building format plan of subdivision on BUP899 and consists of 12 lots and common property. The community management statement (CMS) for Galileo Tower shows the Standard Module applies.
• [7] The applicant is the owner of Lot 5.
• [8] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Galileo Tower.

• [9] The Commissioner referred the application for an interim order to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [10] 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] The parties to this dispute are the body corporate and the owner of a lot. This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act.[2] This dispute concerns an anticipated contravention of the Act. I am thus satisfied this is a dispute within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and is within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[3]
• [11] An adjudicator is expressly given 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] Although there is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided, in the circumstances, I decided it was appropriate to invite the body corporate to make a submission about the application for interim orders.

• [13] The applicant explains that there is a pool on the common property. The pool is accessed via a staircase. The applicant says that she "cannot use the staircase with 13 steps to access the pool after an injury and loss of balance and aging without a handrail." She says the lack of a handrail was first identified as a category 2 risk in a health and safety report, which recommended the issue be rectified within 6 months. The opinion that there was a risk was affirmed by the safety consultants in March 2025.
• [14] The applicant has sought several quotes for a handrail and installation. In February 2024, she submitted one such quote to the committee for its consideration. Although the committee has had multiple meetings in the intervening period it has not approved her quote. The body corporate considered the issue at its October 2024 AGM but did not approve any quotes.
• [15] Thereafter, in another attempt to resolve the issue, she sought advice from a qualified contractor who worked in collaboration with a qualified pool safety inspector to obtain a quote for a cost-effective way of installing a handrail that would be in compliance with current pool safety regulations.
• [16] The applicant says she then proposed a motion at an extraordinary meeting (EGM) of the body corporate in March 2025. However, she says that shortly before that meeting, a qualified contractor withdrew his quote because the contractor was treated with disrespect by a lot owner. The motions to approve alternative quotes to install a handrail failed to pass at the EGM.
• [17] The applicant also claims one of the members of the committee has repeatedly represented he is obtaining quotes for a handrail. No such quotes have been presented. Based on several emails from two other owners, the applicant understands the committee member is now representing he has a quote and that it is within committee spending limits. Based on the costs of prior quotes, she believes that the committee intends to pass a series of motions for the works, which would separately be below the committee spending limit, but the total cost would exceed the limit. She says that would contravene section 172(2) of the Standard Module.
• [18] The applicant says the committee and the body corporate have acted unreasonably in making decisions about the handrail for the stairs to the pool. She says that the body corporate is in breach of 6 legislative requirements relating to the health, safety, and security of all owners, occupiers, and guests. She is seeking final orders about the installation of a handrail to the staircase leading to the common property pool at the scheme.
• [19] In the meantime, the applicant seeks an interim order

... to prevent the body corporate committee for Galileo Tower pass a series of Votes Outside Committee to install a handrail to the stairs leading to the pool in contravention of Section 172 of the BCCM Act 1997

• [20] In its submission, the committee notes that the applicant became a member of the committee at the October 2024 AGM. At the same AGM, it says the body corporate resolved to arrange installation of a suitable handrail on the staircase. The committee says it planned to discuss and organise the specifics at a committee meeting called and held on 25 February 2025. However, the applicant failed to attend that meeting.
• [21] The committee explains that the scheme was established in 1972, well before the current pool security barrier legislation was in place. He comments that this made it problematic to find a solution for securing the pool. Compliance with the legislation was achieved with some difficulty.
• [22] Regarding a handrail for the stairs, the committee says it has taken some time to obtain 3 quotes to be considered. It intends to hold a committee meeting in May to discuss the matter in person rather than decide by a vote outside committee meeting. The committee asks that the application for an interim order be dismissed so that it can proceed to move forward with the handrail issue.

• [23] The only issue to decide at this time is whether an interim order is warranted.
• [24] I am empowered to issue an interim order if I am 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] 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.
• [25] 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 issue in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered. At this stage, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their legal arguments will be successful.[6] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success to justify making an order.
• [26] I must also consider the practical reasons for and the 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 final orders later determine the respondent has contravened the CMS. I must weigh that against the harm to the body corporate if I grant an interim order and the applicant is ultimately unsuccessful in the application for final orders.
• [27] Accordingly, to determine whether I am satisfied an interim order is warranted and appropriate, I will consider whether a serious legal issue has been presented with sufficient likelihood of success and I will also weigh the balance of convenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.

• [28] There is only one legal issue raised in connection with the application for interim orders - an anticipated contravention of the legislation relating to committee approvals of spending.
• [29] A committee is permitted to make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate, including some decisions to approve spending of body corporate funds. However, there are limits on the amount of spending the committee may approve. Amounts above the committee limit must be approved by the body corporate.[7]
• [30] The relevant limit for committee spending is the amount last set by the body corporate at a general meeting or, if no amount has been set, $200 multiplied by the number of lots.[8] Where a series of proposals forms a single project, any one of those proposals will be taken to be above the relevant committee spending limit if the cost of the project as a whole exceeds that limit.[9] In this case, it is not clear to me at this point whether the relevant committee spending limit for Galileo Tower is $2,400 or another amount set at a general meeting.
• [31] The applicant believes the committee has quotes for the handrail itself that may be under the relevant spending limit. However, she suggests that the entire project would involve installation and other works which would necessarily mean the total project would be above the limit for committee approval. Based on an email from another owner, the applicant is anticipating that the committee intends to proceed to approve spending on this project. She infers the committee must be planning to do so by passing a series of motions.
• [32] I am tolerably satisfied that there is a legal question presented whether the project to purchase and install a handrail would exceed the committee spending limit.

Nature or urgency of the circumstances and balance of convenience

• [33] Even where serious legal issues have been raised, interim orders are only granted if they are necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances. Thus, I must consider the urgency and nature of the circumstances, and also how an interim order could inconvenience or harm the respective parties in view of different outcomes on the application for final orders.
• [34] In this case, the application for interim orders relates to an anticipated contravention of the legislation. It is based on the applicant's assumptions about how the committee intends to proceed with proposals and make decisions through votes outside committee meetings (VOCM). At this stage, I thus consider the circumstances to be hypothetical in nature. Further, the committee have represented they intend to consider the handrail issue at a face to face meeting, not through a VOCM. I also do not consider there to be any urgency that would warrant an interim order because, as I understand it, no decisions have been made by the committee about the handrail project.
• [35] In terms of the balance of convenience, even if she prevails on her application for final orders, I am not persuaded that the applicant will suffer any harm if the interim order is not granted. Conversely, I consider restraining the committee from considering proposals and making decisions while the application for final orders is pending would be inconvenient to the body corporate.
• [36] Finally, the relevant spending limit applies to the committee for Galileo Tower, and the committee remains obligated to comply with section 172 of the Standard Module when considering proposals and making decisions about the handrail project. I consider that the applicant is effectively seeking an interim order declaring that the committee must comply with the legislation, specifically that it must comply with section 172 of the Standard Module. However, as other adjudicators have consistently found, there is little utility in making orders that simply restate the legal obligations of the respondent. I decline to do so here.

• [37] I have dismissed the application for the reasons given above.
• [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 application will be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[10] The dispute may then be resolved by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from all affected parties.

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

[6] 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.

[7] There are some limited exceptions where spending may be authorised by other means, for example, by order of an adjudicator. See Section 172(1) of the Standard Module

[8] See Schedule 1 Dictionary of the Standard Module

[9] See Secction 172(2) of the Standard Module