GeeGeez Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for 92 Abbott Street [2026] QCAT 84

(a) Lots 1, 2 and 3 which are used for commercial purposes (it would appear primarily tourist or hospitality purposes). They each have frontage onto Abbott Street, and are located towards the fore of the block.

(b) Lot 4 which is used as administrative or office space. Lot 4 spans the middle floor of the three-floor complex at the rear of the Property. It includes parking space on the ground floor.

(c) Lot 5 which is used for residential purposes. It is a single three-bedroom residence on the upper floor of the three-floor complex at the rear of the Property. It includes parking space on the ground floor.

[3] Pursuant to dealing number 708979934, the current schedule of lot entitlements (in Schedule A of the dealing) is expressed to be as follows:

(a) for Lot 1: the contribution is 1, and the interest is 3;

(b) for Lot 2: the contribution is 1, and the interest is 3;

(c) for Lot 3: the contribution is 1, and the interest is 2;

(d) for Lot 4: the contribution is 1, and the interest is 1; and

(e) for Lot 5: the contribution is 1, and the interest is 1;

[4] The BCCM Act provides the statutory machinery for the attribution to individual lot owners of their share of responsibility for common expenses in a community management scheme, as well as the lot owners' share of the proprietary interest in common property, including the assets of the scheme. Sections 46A and 46B establish, for the purposes of the BCCM Act, the "equality principle", the "relativity principle" and the "market value principle".

[5] Subsection 46B(1) of the BCCM Act provides that:

(1) The market value principle for deciding interest schedule lot entitlements for the lots included in a community titles scheme is the principle that the lot entitlements must reflect the respective market values of the lots, except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for the individual lot entitlements not to reflect the respective market values of the lots.

[6] Further, as subs 46B(2)(b) of the BCCM Act states, "for establishing the market value of a lot created under a standard format plan of subdivision or volumetric format plan of subdivision, buildings and improvements on the lot are to be disregarded".

[7] Subsection 47(2) of the BCCM Act provides that the "contribution schedule lot entitlement" for a lot is the basis for calculating "the lot owner's share of amounts levied by the body corporate ...". Subsection 47(3) of the BCCM Act provides that the "interest schedule lot entitlement" for a lot is the basis for calculating the "lot owner's share of common property", as well as "the value of the lot, for the purposes of a charge, levy, rate or tax that is payable directly to a local government, the Commissioner of State Revenue appointed under the Taxation Administration Act 2001 or other authority and that is calculated and imposed on the basis of value".

[8] Section 48 of the BCCM Act provides that the owner of a lot in a community management scheme may apply "as provided under the QCAT Act, for an order of QCAT exercising the tribunal's original jurisdiction for the adjustment of an interest schedule". In an application to the Tribunal for the adjustment of an interest schedule, the Respondent "is the body corporate".[1]

[9] In hearing and determining the application for an adjustment (under subs 48(1)(b)), the "order of .... QCAT must be consistent with the market value principle, as applied in relation to the respective market values of the lots included in the scheme when the order is made".[2]

[10] Therefore, the determinative task of the Tribunal, in hearing and determining the application for an adjustment of an interest schedule, is (pursuant to subs 46(1) of the BCCM Act) to ascertain the respective market values of each of the lots, and apply that respective market value to each lot, "except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for the individual lot entitlements not to reflect the respective market values of the lots".

[11] Additionally, consistent with subs 46B(2)(b) of the BCCM Act, if the lot is "created under a standard format plan of subdivision or volumetric format plan of subdivision", then "buildings and improvement on the lot" are disregarded in ascertaining the market value. If the lot is not "a standard format plan of subdivision or volumetric format plan of subdivision" then "buildings and improvements on the lot" are taken into consideration in ascertaining the market value.

[12] In Fischer v Body Corporate for Centrepoint CTS 7779 [2004] QCA 214 ("Fischer"), the Queensland Court of Appeal said (at [5]) of the legislative framework established by the relevant provisions of the BCCM Act that:

The Building Units and Group Titles Act was repealed in 1997 and replaced by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) ('the Act'), which provides that there should be two sets of 'lot entitlements' for each apartment in a community titles scheme, formerly a building units plan. The two sets were 'contribution schedule lots' and 'interest schedule lots'. The former is the means by which the respective contributions of the apartment owners to the maintenance cost of the building are determined. The interest schedule is the means by which the respective owners' interests in the common property are determined. In each case there is a schedule of lot entitlements which consists of a whole number allocated to each apartment.

[13] In Fischer, Chesterman J identified that the point of principle relevant to the appeal was "whether in determining an application for the adjustment of a contribution lot entitlement schedule and, in particular, in determining the extent to which it is just and equitable that respective lot entitlements not be equal, the inquiry is at large ... or whether it is limited to matters which show how apartments differently affect the cost of running and maintaining a community titles scheme".[3]

[14] At [26], his Honour arrived at the conclusion that:[4]

Although the Act gives no clear indication one way or the other, the preferable view is that a contribution schedule should provide for equal contributions by apartment owners, except insofar as some apartments can be shown to give rise to particular costs to the body corporate which other apartments do not. That question, whether a schedule should be adjusted, is to be answered with regard to the demand made on the services and amenities provided by a body corporate to the respective apartments, or their contribution to the costs incurred by the body corporate. More general considerations of amenity, value or history are to be disregarded. What is at issue is the 'equitable' distribution of the costs.

[15] It is against this legislative backdrop that the present application is considered.

[16] The Applicant is the registered owner of Lots 1 and 2 in the Scheme. The Applicant invoked the original jurisdiction of this Tribunal pursuant to s 48 of the BCCM Act "for an adjustment of an interest schedule" in the Scheme.

[17] The Applicant is a corporation, established pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and is the trustee of a trust. There are four directors of the Applicant company, of which Ms Corinne Grimaudo is one of them. Ms Grimaudo is also the secretary of the committee for the Respondent.

[18] The Applicant seeks an order from this Tribunal that pursuant to s 48 of the BCCM Act, the interest schedule for the Scheme be adjusted to reflect the market values of the lots in the Scheme such that the Schedule of lot entitlements in Schedule A of the Scheme is varied to read as follows:

(a) for Lot 1: the contribution be set at 1, and the interest be set at 1;

(b) for Lot 2: the contribution be set at 1, and the interest be set at 1;

(c) for Lot 3: the contribution be set at 1, and the interest be set at 2;

(d) for Lot 4: the contribution be set at 1, and the interest be set at 2; and

(e) for Lot 5: the contribution be set at 1, and the interest be set at 4;

[19] Pursuant to subs 48(2) of the BCCM Act, the Respondent (as the body corporate) is the proper contradictor to the application brought by the Applicant for an adjustment of the relevant interest schedule.

[20] It is apparent on the information available to the Tribunal that the Respondent does not seek to consent or oppose the application brought by the Applicant.

[21] Mr Andrew Thornton and Mr Rodd Kentwell are the registered owners of Lot 5 of the Scheme. Again, Lot 5 is the residential apartment situated at the back of the Property - furthest from Abbott Street.

[22] The Applicant seeks an adjustment in the interest schedule. If the application is successful, and the adjustment that the Applicant seeks is ordered, the Applicant's proportion of the interest would change from a 30 percent interest to a 10 percent interest. And if that adjustment that is sought by the Applicant is granted, the proportion in the interest held by Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell, as the proprietors of Lot 5 (the residential apartment), would change from 10 percent to 40 percent.

[23] Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell oppose the adjustment. They say that such an adjustment would "significantly increase their contribution to the insurance schedule". Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell applied to be joined to the proceeding as the second respondent so that they could resist the application for an adjustment. Their application to be joined as the second respondent was refused by the Tribunal on 10 April 2025. After seeking the parties' submissions, the Tribunal made further directions on 26 June 2025 which permitted each owner of a lot in the Scheme to file submissions and evidence in relation to the application for an adjustment. The parties were also directed to file any submissions and evidence in reply. The temporal requirements of those directions were varied on 22 October 2025.

[24] Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell filed an affidavit of Mr Thornton (affirmed on 9 September 2025), which included a report described as a "Risk Assessment Report" authored by Ms Anna Alexander. Also filed were submissions on behalf of both Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell (as the owners of Lot 5), as well as the owner of Lot 4 in the Scheme - that is, the separate owners of Lots 4 and 5 jointly filed submissions opposing the application for an adjustment "on the basis that it is not just and equitable".

[25] In support of its application, the Applicant has obtained and provided to the Tribunal a market assessment from the firm of Herron Todd White, which is dated 15 May 2024 (the "HTW Report"). The HTW Report was attached to the application which was filed on 8 November 2024. The HTW Report is authored by Mr Craig Myers, who is a certified practising valuer.

[26] As the Applicant says in its submissions (dated 10 September 2024), the HTW Report:[5]

... does not include a physical inspection of the interior of the lots. The Valuation Report [that is, the HTW Report] has regard to the layout of the lots, their usage and size, and assumes the property is in good order with no structural defects and to comparable sales in the area.

[27] The Applicant further submits that "the preferrable approach is to have regard to the size of the lot, its various attributes and general amenity as well as comparable sales, as the Valuation Report has done, rather than the state of the improvements on the internal of the lot given that this will vary from lot to lot over the life of the Scheme".[6]

[28] As a consequence of the opinions expressed in the HTW Report, and, specifically, the opinions in relation to the market value of each of the lots, the Applicant submits that the current interest schedule lot entitlement as well as the market value ascribed to each lot by the Valuation Report (as at the date of the Report, being 15 May 2024) and the proposed new interest schedule lot entitlements (the "ISLE") for the Scheme are, and should be:

[29] The Applicant also provided by way of a reply a document entitled "Insurance Report", dated 17 January 2025. That document was prepared by Body Corporate Brokers Pty Ltd ("BCB"). At the base of the cover page of the document a contact for BCB is identified - Cathie Biffin, who is described as the Regional Manager, Gold Coast. The Tribunal is unable to ascertain with any certainty who the author of the document is. In the submissions in reply of the Applicant, filed on 9 October 2025, the Applicant does not at any stage identify who the author of the Insurance Report was, beyond identifying that it was provided by BCB.

[30] As already identified supra, Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell have provided a report to the Tribunal, entitled "Risk Assessment Report", which was authored by Ms Anna Alexander, who is described as the managing director of Elissna Pty Ltd. The Risk Assessment Report commences by observing that:

This report has been prepared to assist the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in considering the proposed adjustment of contribution entitlements within community Titles Scheme 29083 at 92 Abbott Street, Cairns. The purpose of this document is to compare the relative insurance risks of the commercial lots and the residential lot, in order to assist the Tribunal in applying the 'just and equitable' test under Section 46 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). A brief overview of the Legal Foundation for this case is set out at Attachment B.

[Emphasis added]

[31] The Risk Assessment Report further observed that:

This report is based on publicly available information, planning overlays, standard insurance frameworks, and general references to the National Construction Code (NCC) and Australian Standards. It does not provide legal advice and is limited to factual observations and risk analysis. All information contained herein is true and correct to the best of the preparer's knowledge and belief.

[Emphasis added]

[32] The Risk Assessment Report concluded with the following "Final Statement":

On the evidence presented, it is clear that the commercial operations place a materially greater risk burden on the scheme than the residential dwelling. For insurance contributions to be 'just and equitable' under Section 46 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), entitlements must reflect how lots actually contribute to the scheme's costs. On the evidence, the commercial lots materially drive higher insurance premiums, whereas the residential lot does not. Equal cost-sharing would therefore contravene both the statutory principle and the reasoning in Fischer v Body Corporate for Centrepoint CTS 7779 [2004] QCA 214.

[33] This Tribunal is established as a court of record.[7] In conducting a proceeding, the Tribunal "must observe the rules of natural justice".[8] It "is not bound by the rules of evidence"[9] and "may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate".[10] As it is not bound by the rules of evidence, the Tribunal is not bound by the rule against admitting evidence that offends the opinion rule. It is an evidentiary rule that a witness may not give an opinion on matters calling for the special skills or knowledge of an expert unless the witness is an expert in such matters.[11] This Tribunal is not bound by that rule of admissibility. That said, given that this hearing is a hearing on the papers, and given the nature of the subject-matter, and the question before the Court, the Tribunal will not rely upon opinions expressed in the Applicant's Insurance Report and Mr Thornton and Mr Kentwell's Risk Assessment Report, in so far as each of them contain expressions of opinion proffered by persons who are not qualified to express those opinions, or, in the case of the Applicant's Insurance Report, do not even clearly identify the author of the document.

[34] In considering this application, it is important to properly appreciate the task of the Tribunal, and to arrive at the correct construction of the relevant statutory provisions. And in doing so, this Tribunal must start with the statutory context.[12] As is reiterated supra, in Fischer (at [5]) the Court of Appeal contrasted the "two sets of lot entitlements" - the contribution schedule lot entitlement and the interest schedule lot entitlement. That the legislation creates two different classes, or types, of "entitlements" is instructive. That is, the text and structure of the BCCM Act establishes one "entitlement" which is referrable to the "respective contributions of the apartment owners to the maintenance cost of the building", and another entitlement which is referrable to the "respective owners' interest in the common property".[13]

[35] In Fischer, the District Court of Queensland (at first instance) was requested to consider the adjustment of the contribution schedule lot entitlements for the lot owners. That task necessarily required an examination of "the demand made on the on the services and amenities provided by a body corporate to the respective apartments".[14]

[36] In the present application, the task is different. The application seeks an adjustment of the interest schedule lot entitlement. That is, the examination is not one of the costs attributable to the body corporate (incurred by each lot owner), but an examination of the "interest" connected to each lot (or ought to be connected to each lot). It is a task that involved declaring (or adjusting) the proprietary interest held by each lot owner. The correctness of this statement of the task is reinforced by the presence and operation of s 46B(2)(b) of the BCCM Act, which requires a consideration of the "buildings and improvements on the lot" where the lot is not "a standard format plan of subdivision or volumetric format plan of subdivision". This is a powerful textual indicator that in properly construing the operation of s 48 of the BCCM Act, this Tribunal, in arriving at a decision as to whether there ought to be an adjustment, is to have regard to the value of the buildings and apartments on the lot.

[37] This Tribunal is told that the Property is not a standard format plan of subdivision on volumetric format plan of subdivision. Therefore, regard is to be had to the buildings and improvements on the lot in considering whether any adjustment is warranted.

[38] As identified supra, s 48 of the BCCM Act provides the Tribunal with the jurisdiction "for the adjustment of an interest schedule". Section 48(5) requires this Tribunal to apply the market value principle to the lot entitlements. The market value principle "is the principle that the lot entitlements must reflect the respective market values of the lots, except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances" for the individual lot entitlements to not reflect the respective market values.

[39] In making a finding of fact as to the respective market values of each of the lots on the Property, this Tribunal is persuaded that the evidence given by Mr Myers in the HTW Report is probative (and instructive) of the facts in issue. The Tribunal accepts the assessment of the market value of each of the five lots as set out in the HTW Report. Mr Myers is a certified practising valuer, and the contents of his report is reliable - certainly more reliable than the contents of the Risk Assessment Report. This is pellucid when one re-reads the first paragraph of the Risk Assessment Report which states that the report has been prepared to assist the Tribunal "in considering the proposed adjustment of contribution entitlements" within the Property. This report does not address the question before the Tribunal - it goes to the "contribution" entitlement; not the "interest" entitlement. The Risk Assessment Report appears to speak to the wrong issue.

[40] The Tribunal accepts (and makes a finding of fact) that the valuations set out in the paragraph 28 supra reasonably identify the market value of each of the five lots in the Property.

[41] Having arrived at the market value of each of the five lots (on evidence that the Tribunal accepts as reliable), the task before the Tribunal remains one of applying the "market value principle". That principle has two aspects. First, the ascertaining of the "market value" (and, in this case, having regard to the buildings and improvements on the Property). Second, determining "the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for the individual lot entitlements not to reflect the respective market values of the lots". That is, after having ascertained the respective market value of each lot, primacy must then be given to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances to not apply the respective market value.

[42] In considering the value, it is the view of the Tribunal that the following interest schedule lot entitlement should be attributed to each of the five lots (and therefore the lot entitlements be adjusted accordingly):

(a) for Lot 1: the interest be set at 1;

(b) for Lot 2: the interest be set at 1;

(c) for Lot 3: the interest be set at 1;

(d) for Lot 4: the interest be set at 3; and

(e) for Lot 5: the interest be set at 3;

[43] Having accepted the valuation of Lots 4 and 5 as $530,000.00 and $775,000.00, respectively, this Tribunal has formed a view that the interest held by the owners of Lot 5 is not double that of the interest held by the owner of Lot 4. But upon the Applicant's proposed new interest schedule lot entitlements (set out in paragraph 28, supra) that would be the effect of such a proposed adjustment of the interest schedule.

[44] The Tribunal concludes that the interest of the owners of Lots 4 and 5 is more closely aligned (or similar) to each other. Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the appropriate (or just and equitable) adjustment in the circumstances is for each of Lots 4 and 5 to be given an interest value of 3. This adjustment achieves the parity that is required between the interests associated with Lots 4 and 5.

[45] The Tribunal has concluded that there is not further adjustment required so as to arrive at a just and equitable adjustment.

[46] It is the order of the Tribunal that pursuant to s 48(1)(b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), Schedule A for 92 Abbott Street, Community Title Scheme 29083 be adjusted to reflect the following lot entitlements:

[3] [2004] QCA 214, [24].

[4] With the other members of the Court agreeing: [2004] QCA 214, [1] (McPherson JA), [38] (Atkinson J).

[5] Applicant's submissions, 10 September 2024, paragraph 2.5.

[7] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 164(1).

[8] Ibid s 28(3)(a).

[9] Ibid s 28(3)(b).

[10] Ibid s 28(3)(c).

[11] J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 11th ed, 2017) 1086 [29005].

[12] CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408.

[14] [2004] QCA 214, [26].