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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

[1] The applicant is a lot owner at Glendura Court. He has lodged this application disputing decisions made by the body corporate to:

1. carry out repairs to common property; and
2. fund these works by the raising of a special levy.

[2] The applicant argues that there is no evidence that the works are urgent or required. He says the special contribution of $27,500.00 is unaffordable and that the body corporate's decision to pass this levy is unreasonable.

[3] The special levy is due on 2 March 2026. The applicant seeks an interim order to immediately suspend the collection of the special levy, and commencement of the works until final orders are determined (or until 3 months after the levy payment due date, whichever is the earlier).

[4] Final orders are sought to invalidate the body corporate resolutions approving the works and special levy.

[5] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted.

[6] Glendura Court is a community titles scheme comprising 4 lots and common property in Mooloolaba, Queensland. The scheme is registered as Building Units Plan No. 3760 and is regulated by the Standard Module. The applicant owns Lot 4. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are owned by Poole Group Holdings Pty Ltd (Poole Group).

[7] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under, the Act or community management statement.[1] The applicant's claim is that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in regard to decisions made about maintenance and the special levy. This is a matter that is prima facie within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator to determine.

[8] However, the jurisdiction of a department adjudicator is limited by section 229A of the Act which provides that an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction in a debt dispute.[2] It is therefore necessary that I deal briefly with this issue.

[9] A 'debt dispute' is defined as a dispute between a body corporate and the owner of a lot, about the recovery, by the body corporate from the owner, of a debt under the Act.[3] In my view, while the current application relates, in part, to a special levy that has been raised, it is not a dispute about the body corporate's recovery of that debt. Rather, the dispute is primarily about the body corporate's decision-making in matters of maintenance and levy contributions, and whether this was done reasonably. Such are matters within my jurisdiction as a department adjudicator under Chapter 6 of the Act.[4]

[10] Having accepted the application, the commissioner referred the application to me to decide whether an interim order is warranted. When dealing with an interim order request, there is no statutory requirement to invite submissions from affected parties before an interim order is decided.[5] In the circumstances, I considered it appropriate to give the committee a brief opportunity to respond to the interim order application. However, given the make up of the ownership in the body corporate, the submission was made not by the committee but by Poole Group as the owner of Lots 1, 2 and 3.

[11] An adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[6] In considering whether to grant interim relief, an adjudicator must consider:

1. Whether the application raises a serious legal issue with a likelihood of success at final determination, that is, whether there is any merit to the application.
2. Whether the balance of convenience favours the interim order being granted. This requires balancing the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing interim relief if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular significance is whether an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

[12] The application challenges 2 resolutions passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate held on 21 January 2026 (the EGM).

[13] Motion 2b of the EGM authorised a quotation from BKN Building Solutions Pty Ltd in the amount of $115,623.75 for maintenance and repairs as per the scope of works listed in quotation #QU-0041.

[14] Motion 3 of the EGM authorised the cost of the works to be partly funded from the existing sinking fund balances with the raising of a special levy to fund the remainder of the cost in the amount of $110,000.00, payable by each owner in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlement of the lot.

[15] The applicant disputes that there is any urgency to the works, saying that he has not received any complaints from his tenant and that his rental agent has not observed any unsafe conditions. He says despite requests, he has not been provided with photos, reports or engineering evidence in relation to the condition of the property. The applicant submits that he is willing to have genuine proven safety issues fixed, but he is not agreeable to the current scope and price of works without re-evaluation. The applicant requested that the matter be deferred and reconsidered at the next AGM, but this was not agreed to. He has since requested that a further EGM be called to revoke the resolutions.

[16] In relation to the special levy, the applicant alleges that the decision is unreasonable and oppressive. He says the $27,500.00 contribution that he is required to pay is a "severe disproportionate burden on a minority owner" and that it is over 3 times his property's annual net income, making it unaffordable and threatening the viability of his investment.

[17] Poole Group's submission includes the following:

1. The body corporate obtained a maintenance report dated 6 August 2024 from QBM which was distributed to owners via email of 18 August 2024.
2. The QBM report made a number of recommendations relating to maintenance and defective areas of the common area. It was recommended that some items be repaired and replaced, while others be monitored and reviewed in 12 months.
3. On 31 March 2025, the gutters were cleaned. Photos were provided indicating severely corroded gutters and a mouldy deteriorating roofing.
4. To address the ongoing deterioration of the property, 2 quotes were obtained - one from Higgins Coatings and a second quote from BKN Building Solutions. The quotes included repair and replacement of items identified, as well as the cleaning and restoration of the roof.
5. Upon receipt of two quotes, the EGM was called, and a motion passed to approve the repairs and to select BKN Building Solutions as the contractor.
6. The submitted photographs show continued deterioration of items noted in 2024 and that are now a safety issue. The hand railing and supports need repairs or replacement, the carport supporting posts need replacing, the carport roofing is rusted and speed bracing has rotted away, the fixings of the carport roof to the structure are rusting.

[18] The body corporate has various maintenance obligations under the legislation. It is responsible for maintaining common property in good condition,[7] including common property utility infrastructure.[8] To the extent that the common property is structural in nature, the body corporate must maintain it in a structurally sound condition.[9] For a scheme created under a building format plan (which Glendura Court is), the body corporate has additional maintenance responsibilities, including maintaining in good condition roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots or common property.[10] It must also maintain in a structurally sound condition the following elements of the building that are not common property: foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection and essential supporting framework.[11]

[19] The applicant does not dispute that the works in question are not a body corporate responsibility. Rather, he claims that there is no evidence that the maintenance and repairs are necessary.

[20] A body corporate must act reasonably in discharging its functions, including in making (or not making) a decision.[12] If it is found that a body corporate has not acted reasonably, an adjudicator may set aside the decision.

[21] What is reasonable is an objective question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances. Reasonable decision-making "...involves an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue..." and "...requires that all relevant matters to be taken into consideration and irrelevant ones left out."[13] A person challenging a decision bears the onus of establishing that the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances.

[22] I have reviewed the QBM 12 month maintenance report dated 6 August 2024. The report identifies a list of items which are recommended to be rectified within the next 12 months. These include the carport timber support posts, the carport roof bracing, building fascia boards, covers and guttering, and damaged stormwater downpipes. An invoice dated 31 March 2025 from Gutter-Vac has also been submitted in which it is noted, with supporting photographs, that the roof is mouldy and that some gutters are rusty and in need of repair. Further photographs have also been submitted evidencing the rotted carport support posts and damaged stormwater pipes, and rusted carport roof sheets and fixing brackets.

[23] I have reviewed the BKN Building Solutions quotation that was approved by the body corporate. It includes the above described items identified as being in disrepair.

[24] Prima facie, given the evidence, I am not satisfied the application raises a serious legal issue regarding the body corporate's decision to carry out repair works pursuant to Motion 2b at the EGM.

[25] The applicant also argues that the special levy raised pursuant to Motion 3 of the EGM is unreasonable.

[26] The body corporate must adopt an administrative fund budget and sinking fund budget each financial year.[14] It must also fix, on the basis of its budgets, the contributions to be levied on the owner of each lot.[15] If a liability arises for which no provision, or inadequate provision, has been made in the budget, the body corporate must, by ordinary resolution -

1. fix a special contribution to be levied on the owner of each lot towards the liability; and
2. decide whether the contribution is to be paid in a single amount or in instalments and, if in instalments, the number of instalments; and
3. fix the date on or before which payment of the single amount or each instalment is required.[16]

[27] This is what the body corporate has sought to do in this instance. The cost of the works is $115,623.75. I understand from the submitted correspondence that the body corporate has a sinking fund balance of $35,000.00. Pursuant to Motion 3, the body corporate has authorised the cost of the works to be partly funded from the existing sinking fund with the balance to be met by the raising of a special levy in the amount of $110,000.00. Given the contribution schedule lot entitlements are equal, each lot is liable for $27,500.00.

[28] I can understand it may be difficult for the applicant to contribute $27,500.00, particularly in one lump sum. However, the body corporate has a statutory obligation to maintain common property in a good and structurally sound condition. The evidence indicates the property is in need of maintenance, and that this appears to be long overdue. A lot owner's inability to afford the special levy contribution is not a valid basis for the body corporate not to proceed with necessary maintenance.

[29] At this preliminary stage, the applicant has not established how the body corporate acted unreasonably in resolving to raise a special levy pursuant to Motion 3 of the EGM.

[30] The applicant submits there is no immediate safety risk and that allowing "a short 3-month pause balances urgency while allowing time for fair resolution." He submits that if the interim order is not granted, penalties on the overdue payment could add up to over $7,000.00, totalling a bill of $34,000.00 which he cannot afford. He says this risks debt recovery action and severe financial harm.

[31] I note in an email dated 13 February 2026, Poole Group proposed the following which the applicant has not accepted:

1. the applicant come up with an acceptable time frame to pay the special levy;
2. Poole Group will agree to waive any interest on the special levy;
3. the applicant will be liable for any increases in the cost of the maintenance works over and above the current quotation.

[32] Poole Group submits that the applicant has provided no time frames as to when the levies can be paid. It submits the works are now urgent and well overdue, and that the building is old and has had very little maintenance over its lifetime.

[33] While I note the applicant asserts he is in a difficult financial position, I am not satisfied this justifies the granting of interim relief. Regardless of whether there is an immediate safety risk, the evidence suggests the repairs are at least necessary if not well overdue. Further, delaying the work may result in increased costs for the body corporate. I see no basis to stop the body corporate from undertaking this work on account of the applicant's financial position. While understandably challenging for the applicant, such is an ordinary consequence of ownership in a body corporate.

[34] For the above reasons, I am not satisfied an interim order is warranted in the circumstances. I will now refer this application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.

[35] Given there are only 2 lot owners involved, department conciliation may be an appropriate next step. If the dispute is not resolved, the application for final orders remains to be determined.

[4] See Body Corp for '11 Joseph' CTS 33588 v Desarrollo Pty Ltd ATF The Cove Trust 1 and anor [2022] QCATA 41 at [49]

[7] Section 180(1) of the Standard Module

[9] Section 180(1) of the Standard Module

[10] Section 180(2)(a)(iii) of the Standard Module

[11] Section 180(2)(b) of the Standard Module

[13] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 42, citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423

[14] Section 160 of the Standard Module

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

[16] Section 162(2) of the Standard Module