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

COMMON PROPERTY - whether body corporate's duty to manage and maintain common property requires it to install a handrail for safety to a flight of more than a dozen stairs leading to the common property pool; REASONABLENESS - whether body corporate has acted reasonably in making decisions about installing a handrail.

Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 101(2); Standard Module, s 180

1. Within 30 days of this order, the Body Corporate for Galileo Tower CTS 14193 must obtain at least one quote for the installation of a handrail to the common property stairs leading to the scheme's pool area and for any related works to gates and fences that are necessary to comply with applicable pool safety regulations (collectively, the Handrail Works).
2. Within 60 days of this order, the body corporate must call and hold (in accordance with the legislative requirements) an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate, at which owners must consider and vote on:

a) a motion proposing that the body corporate approve the quote described in Order 1 and authorise the associated expenditure on the Handrail Works; > > b) any other committee motion proposing an alternative quote for the Handrail Works; > > c) any motion, submitted to the committee within 30 days of this order by any lot owner, including a motion proposing that the body corporate approve a quote for and expenditure on the Handrail Works; and > > d) any other motions proposed by the committee or proposed by a lot owner and received by the committee within 30 days of this order.

• [1] This application is about whether the body corporate has failed to act reasonably in making decisions about installing a handrail to stairs that provide access to the pool at the scheme.
• [2] The applicant says health and safety reports have confirmed that the lack of a handrail poses a safety risk. She says the committee and the body corporate have failed to act reasonably in making decisions about installing a handrail. She seeks an order that the body corporate be required to accept a quote to install a handrail and perform other works to ensure the pool complies with applicable pool safety legislation. She also seeks an order that she be compensated for her efforts in having this issue resolved.
• [3] The committee opposes the orders sought. It says the body corporate now has 2 additional quotes for handrail-related works. It says those quotes and the applicant's quote should be considered by the body corporate at its annual general meeting (AGM). However, it appears the body corporate did not decide any handrail motions at its recent AGM.
• [4] For the reasons that follow, I have made orders requiring the body corporate to obtain at least one quote for the handrail and related works and that it call and hold an extraordinary general meeting to consider approving a quote for the handrail works.

• [5] The scheme known as Galileo Tower CTS 14193 (Galileo Tower) is located in Hamilton. Galileo Tower was established in the 1970s by registration of a building format plan of subdivision (BUP899). It consists of 12 lots and common property. The community management statement (CMS) for Galileo Tower shows the Standard Module applies.
• [6] The applicant is the owner of Lot 5.
• [7] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Galileo Tower.

• [8] The applicant initially applied for an interim order restraining the committee for the body corporate from making decisions about the handrail for the staircase to the pool area. I dismissed the application for interim orders.[1]
• [9] The applicant made this application for final orders to resolve the dispute. The application then proceeded according to the legislation, with the Commissioner inviting the respondent and all owners to make a submission on the application.[2] The committee, acting on behalf of the respondent, made a submission. No other submissions were received. The applicant inspected the submission and provided a reply. A dispute resolution recommendation was made to refer the application to department adjudication.[3]
• [10] I investigated the application by reviewing the submitted materials and by requiring the body corporate to provide me with additional information relevant to the dispute.

• [11] The applicant explained in the application for interim orders that there is a pool on the common property which is accessed via a 13-step staircase.[4] The staircase has no handrail. The applicant says that in a health and safety report back in 2003, safety consultants identified the lack of a handrail as a category 2 risk, with the report recommending that the issue be rectified within 6 months. The same consultants confirmed in March 2025 that the lack of a handrail remained a safety risk.
• [12] The applicant asserts that the body corporate is responsible for ensuring the common property is maintained and is safe for owners. She says the body corporate's failure to have a handrail installed is a contravention of the body corporate legislation as well as other applicable legislation, including the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Building and other Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2010, which requires all pools to be certified as safe. She also says that the committee and the body corporate are failing to comply with their respective duties to act reasonably when making decisions about common property and the safety of owners and occupiers.
• [13] The applicant claims further that committee members are bound to comply with the Code of Conduct for Committee Voting Members, which includes a duty to act in the best interests of the body corporate. She says the committee and its members are not complying with those duties.
• [14] The applicant says she has been seeking to have the safety issue resolved for some time. She notes that any handrail must be designed and located to comply with the pool safety laws, including those applying to the non-climbable zone (NCZ). Compliance with those regulations may require some of the pool fencing and/or gates to be changed or relocated.
• [15] The applicant says her actions to resolve the issue include, writing to the committee, meeting with contractors familiar with pool safety legislation, obtaining designs and quotes, and proposing motions both to the committee and at general meetings that the body corporate approve a quote for installation of a handrail. In February 2024, she submitted a quote to the committee for approval, but it was not approved. At the next two committee meetings in 2024, the committee represented it would obtain other quotes, but did not do so.
• [16] The applicant also proposed motions at the October 2024 AGM that the body corporate resolve to install a handrail on the common property stairs leading to the pool and approves quotes for purchase and installation of a handrail. Although the minutes show the body corporate resolved to install a handrail, the motions to purchase and install a handrail failed to pass. At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) called for March 2025, the applicant proposed another motion that the body corporate resolve to engage a contractor to install a handrail. The motion, however, was ruled out of order when the contractor withdrew the quote.
• [17] As a further step to resolve the issue, the applicant says she has been working with a contractor, the principal of which is a qualified pool safety fence installer, to arrive at a solution that balances regulatory compliance with site-specific and aesthetic considerations. She says the quote from that contractor (QU-2014) "offers a safe and practical solution that facilitates safe entry and exit for owners, residents and visitors to the pool" and is accordance with the safety report by a pool fencing inspector.
• [18] To resolve her dispute about the handrail and pool fence safety, the applicant seeks two final orders, specifically, that the body corporate:

engage [a named contractor] to install a handrail to the right-hand side of the staircase leading to the pool as per their quote QU 0214 - relocating a gate on the right-hand side to three new fence panels for $5000 within one (1) month ....

.... compensate the applicant $500 for the endless time, effort, work and resources required to submit this application for all owners and their guests over the last seven (7) months.

• [19] The committee, represented by the treasurer, made a submission opposing the application. He advised that the committee has obtained 2 quotes to install a handrail that complies with the NCZ aspects of the pool safety regulations. He says these quotes are "more economical" options than the applicant's proposal. The treasurer proposes that the dispute should be resolved by the body corporate considering 3 quotes - 2 sourced by the committee and the applicant's quote - at its next AGM.
• [20] The treasurer also suggested that the dispute may have been resolved if the applicant had attended a committee meeting held in February 2025. He contends "it would never have come to this [application]" if the applicant had attended that meeting. The treasurer also suggests that the applicant's request for $500 compensation be proposed as a motion to be considered by the body corporate at the next AGM.

• [21] The applicant says the submission continues the committee's pattern of delay and obstruction in having the issue resolved. Since she first submitted a handrail quote to the committee in February 2024, she says there have been 5 meetings at which the committee could have addressed and resolved the issue. She says her efforts to have the handrail issue resolved have been met with consistent and unreasonable resistance and abuse.
• [22] She suggests the treasurer has a history of unilateral decision making. The applicant sees his latest proposal as an attempt to shift decision making from the committee to a general meeting because the motions are more likely to fail at a general meeting.
• [23] Ultimately, the applicant says it is unreasonable for the committee to obstruct and delay on a matter of safety for so long as its failure to resolve the issue compromises the safety of all occupiers and guests.

• [24] Given the committee had indicated in its submission that the dispute might be resolved by the body corporate deciding a motion at its next AGM and where I considered that AGM was likely imminent or had been held, I asked the committee to provide me with an update.
• [25] The treasurer responded that the AGM was held on 15 October 2025. I understand from his response that the body corporate did not resolve at its AGM to install a handrail and undertake necessary related works to the pool fencing. I also understand from the treasurer's comment that this was because he thought it was appropriate to wait until the parties had conciliated the dispute. He also notes that all of the quotes obtained by the applicant and by the committee are expired.
• [26] The treasurer continues to suggest the dispute could have been resolved if the applicant had attended and participated in committee meetings.

• [27] There are two issues to be decided. Firstly, whether the body corporate has contravened the legislation by failing to manage and maintain common property or by failing to act reasonably in making decisions about safety and maintenance issues at the scheme. Secondly, if the body corporate is contravening the legislation, what orders would be just and equitable in the circumstances.
• [28] Before determining the answers to those questions, I will briefly review the duties of the body corporate to manage and maintain the common property and its duty to act reasonably in making decisions. I will then assess whether the applicant has demonstrated that the committee and/or body corporate has failed in its duty to maintain or failed to act reasonably in making decisions. Finally, I will consider what orders (if any) are just and equitable in the circumstances.

• [29] The body corporate is charged with administering, managing, and controlling the common property and body corporate assets reasonably and for the benefit of the owners of the lots included in the scheme.[5] The body corporate has an express duty to maintain common property, "in good condition, including, to the extent that common property is structural in nature, in a structurally sound condition."[6]
• [30] The District Court of Queensland has found the duty to maintain means a body corporate is obligated to "remedy any defect as soon as any of the building parts covered by the duty fall into disrepair or were not operating properly."[7] Queensland Courts and Tribunals have found the duty to maintain, among other things: includes an obligation to keep something in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to serve the purpose for which it exists; and that the duty may oblige the body corporate to do things which may not be for the benefit of the owners as a whole or even a majority of them.[8]
• [31] In addition to its duties relating to common property, a body corporate has an overarching statutory duty to act reasonably in making decisions, including when it makes decisions about the common property.[9] When the committee is making decisions on behalf of the body corporate, it too has a statutory duty to act reasonably.[10]
• [32] To "act" reasonably when making decisions means that when considering an issue, the body corporate must properly consider - in a genuine, evidence-based, and rational way - the factors that are relevant in the circumstances to the decision.[11]

• [33] I am satisfied, and there is no dispute, that the pool, along with the dozen or so stairs leading to the pool area, are part of the common property and that the body corporate is the party that bears the responsibility for managing and maintaining that part of the scheme.
• [34] The scheme was first established in the 1970s and the building codes in force at the time may not have required a handrail to be installed for the stairs. Regardless of the building codes, however, I am satisfied based on the evidence provided that the lack of a handrail for the stairs was identified by external safety consultants as a safety risk in 2003. To reduce the risk, the consultants recommended that the body corporate install a handrail within 6 months. Evidently, the body corporate did not follow that recommendation. In 2025, the same consultants confirmed they continued to hold those views about the safety risk and handrail.
• [35] In my opinion, as part of its function of managing the common property for the benefit of owners, on receiving the safety report the body corporate was obligated to consider the report and to make decisions about installing a handrail. In my view, arguably the report also indicates that the staircase is not in good condition because it suggests that, without a handrail, the stairs are not serving the purpose for which they are intended, which is to allow occupiers to safely ascend and descend to and from the pool area. The applicant also says the absence of a handrail breaches several health and safety regulations.
• [36] I am satisfied, therefore, that the body corporate has a statutory obligation - whether as part of managing the common property (including risks to health and safety) or as a maintenance obligation - to install a handrail on the stairs. Although the lack of a handrail may also be contravening other legislation, it is unnecessary for me to make findings in that regard.
• [37] For the following reasons, I am also satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the body corporate has failed to act reasonably in making decisions about installing a handrail.
• [38] Since at least February 2024, when the applicant raised the issue with the committee and proposed a quote, the body corporate was on renewed notice of the handrail safety issue. To act reasonably, in making decisions about the handrail the committee was required to genuinely consider factors that were relevant to the issue in the particular circumstances of the scheme.
• [39] In my view, this meant the committee and the body corporate are required to consider the body corporate's function in managing and maintaining common property, that access to the pool was via a flight of more than a dozen steps with no handrail, the safety issues this posed to occupiers using the stairs, the safety report and recommendation, and the possibility that the lack of a handrail might mean the body corporate was breaching other applicable legislation.
• [40] I am satisfied after considering those factors, the only rational and legally reasonable decision available to the body corporate was to decide to install a handrail. Indeed, at its AGM held in October 2024, the body corporate passed Motion 15A and resolved to install a handrail to the stairs.
• [41] From the time the issue was raised by the applicant, the committee have had almost 2 years to obtain quotes and either make decisions that are within its spending limits or to propose motions at a general meeting for consideration by owners. Moreover, the committee is required to implement the lawful decisions of the body corporate.[12] It has now been a year since the body corporate resolved to install a handrail to the stairs. In that time, neither the committee nor the body corporate have decided to approve a quote and authorise works to implement that resolution and fulfil the duty to manage and maintain common property.
• [42] Having decided to install a handrail, it is relevant and appropriate for the body corporate to consider its options and the consequences of doing so, including whether installing a handrail might require gates or fences to be moved. The cost of various solutions is also a relevant factor to be considered.
• [43] I acknowledge that designing a handrail to meet the NCZ regulations is not necessarily straightforward, and that the current pool related regulations may require some of the pool fencing and/or gates to be changed or relocated. However, those difficulties are not insurmountable. The various quotes obtained to date show there are several options. In my view, those challenges do not excuse the body corporate from complying with its duties. Moreover, based on the evidence presented, I do not consider those issues explain the significant delays by the committee in obtaining quotes for the works nor the failure of the body corporate to make a decision to approve a quote for works to address this issue.
• [44] For the above reasons, by failing to make decisions to approve a quote for the handrail works, I am satisfied the body corporate is not fulfilling its functions and is contravening its statutory duties to act reasonably in making decisions and maintain the common property. Accordingly, I will next consider what orders would be just and equitable in the circumstances.

• [45] The applicant is asking that the body corporate be ordered to engage, within 30 days, a particular contractor to undertake the works in a quote to install a handrail and relocate a gate and fence panels. The treasurer, on behalf of the committee, opposed the order sought. He originally submitted that the body corporate be instead permitted to consider motions to approve alternative quotes for various options for a handrail and related works at its 2025 AGM.
• [46] It appears there is more than one design and location option for the handrail and related gate and fence relocation works and those options come at various costs. In addition, the quote the applicant proposes I order expired in June 2025. In those circumstances, I am not prepared to make the precise order sought by the applicant.
• [47] I am persuaded, however, that an order about the handrail works is warranted. Accordingly, I have made orders that the committee must obtain a quote for installation of a handrail and any associated works to the gates and fence that may be then required to comply with NCZ regulations. I have also made an order that the committee must call and hold an EGM to consider motions proposing that the body corporate accept the quote I have ordered and to consider any other motions from the committee or lot owners proposing alternative quotes.
• [48] I note that, if multiple quotes are submitted, to comply with the regulations it may be necessary for such motions to be presented as a group of same-issue motions.[13] For the avoidance of doubt, I have also made clear that the committee and lot owners may propose other motions to be considered by owners at the EGM.

• [49] The applicant is also seeking an order requiring the body corporate to pay her $500 as compensation for the "time, effort, work and resources required to submit this application for all owners and their guests."
• [50] Regardless of the merits of that request, an adjudicator has very limited power to make orders relating to costs.
• [51] Where an adjudicator makes an order dismissing an application under section 270(1)(c) of the Act, for being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance, the adjudicator may under section 270(3)(a) order the applicant to compensate another party for loss resulting from the application up to a maximum of $2,000.[14] This section does not empower me to order a party pay compensation or reimburse an applicant.
• [52] Adjudicators are also given the power to make an order, if asked to do so, that a respondent pay an applicant the costs of their application fee for conciliation and adjudication.[15] The power to do so, however, is only available where certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is that the applicant made a conciliation application about the same dispute and the Commissioner ended the application because the respondent failed, without reasonable excuse to participate in the conciliation.[16]
• [53] For the present application, where there is no application for conciliation, I have no power to make the second order sought by the applicant and dismiss this part of the application.

• [54] I have made orders for the reasons given above.
• [55] Both the applicant and the treasurer made various comments about how the other had conducted themselves. Many of those comments were not relevant to the issues in dispute. However, it appears some of the comments were based on two misconceptions that I consider warrant some further observations.
• [56] Firstly, the treasurer made several comments about the applicant's failure to attend meetings (committee or general) at which the handrail was to be discussed. He suggests the handrail issue may have been dealt with by now if she had attended. The treasurer also suggests the applicant has wasted the body corporate's time and money with the dispute, including by making and continuing with this application.
• [57] The body corporate is the party with the primary duty to manage and maintain common property.[17] An owner may draw the body corporate's attention to an issue with the maintenance or safety of common property and is entitled to propose solutions or quotes. Indeed, that is what occurred here. The applicant alerted the body corporate to the issue, obtained quotes, and proposed motions.
• [58] The fact that an issue is raised by an owner, however, does not relieve the body corporate of its duties. Generally speaking, once on notice of a genuine issue and having confirmed it is a body corporate responsibility, the body corporate must act reasonably in making decisions to resolve it. The body corporate is also obligated to manage and maintain the common property even where only one or a limited number of owners will benefit.
• [59] For these reasons, the treasurer's comments implying that the applicant was required to play a role in resolving the issue with the pool handrail and fencing, and his statements that the applicant's non-attendance at meetings somehow makes her responsible for the delays in resolving the issue, are misplaced. Further, where the body corporate fails to attend to the maintenance of common property and/or fails to act reasonably in making decisions about the common property, an owner is entitled to make an application for dispute resolution. As is evident from this order, even though the application for interim orders was dismissed, the application for final orders was well-founded and I made orders to resolve the dispute.
• [60] Secondly, the treasure implied in a 30 June 2025 submission that the body corporate would consider motions about the handrails at its next AGM. Despite the submission, when responding to my investigations in October 2025, the treasurer indicated that he understood the application was to proceed to conciliation and, in those circumstances, he (or the committee) believed it was "appropriate to wait" for that process to be concluded before taking any further action. Indeed, it appears he understood that the body corporate "cannot proceed with the intended works" until the conciliation had occurred. Again, this was misconceived.
• [61] The body corporate was always at liberty to seek renewed quotes and consider motions and, in my opinion, it should have proceeded to do so. Even if the application had been referred to conciliation (and I can see no indication that it has been), the body corporate was at all times under a continuous obligation to maintain and manage the common property, to implement the lawful decision of the body corporate, and to act reasonably in making decisions. In the absence of an interim order, the fact that there is an application pending about a dispute does not relieve a body corporate of its duties. To the contrary, owners and bodies corporate are encouraged to continue to attempt to resolve disputes even when applications are pending.
• [62] Finally, as explained above, I have no power to order the body corporate to compensate the applicant for her efforts in obtaining quotes or otherwise seeking to resolve the handrail safety issue that is a body corporate responsibility. The treasurer has suggested the applicant may instead propose a motion that the body corporate approve such compensation.

[1] See Galileo Tower [2025] QBCCMCmr 141 (Interim Order)

[4] Additional background to the dispute and the applicant's efforts to resolve it can be found in the Interim Order.

[5] See Sections 94(1)(a) and 152(1) of the Act

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

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

[8] See Newton DCJ in Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 82-85, summarising with approval Brereton J in Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owner's Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC 1157, at [4] and [5]; see also _Osprey Mooloola_ba [2022] QBCCMCmr 459 at [88]; and The Cosmopolitan - Surfers Paradise [2022] QBCCMCmr 285 at [38].

[13] See Section 89 of the Standard Module

[17] There are of course some exceptions, for example, when an owner has made improvements to common property. None of those exceptions apply here.