Body Corporate for Heritage Court Caboolture (respondent)

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

COMMITTEE COMPOSITION - whether orders are warranted to remove the committee for alleged breaches of the code of conduct.

Act, ss 101B, schedule 1A; Standard Module, ss 44, 45

• [1] This application is about an alleged breach of the code of conduct for committee voting members (the code) in schedule 1A of the Act.
• [2] The first applicant felt that the secretary's behaviour during an altercation was rude and not the type of conduct one would expect from a committee member. Following the incident, the secretary prepared a committee newsletter which was distributed to all owners. The newsletter included an allegation about the first applicant.
• [3] After demanding a public letter of apology, the first applicant says they found a letter from the secretary in their mailbox, apologising for any inconvenience caused by the newsletter.
• [4] The first applicant subsequently submitted a motion (Motion 4) to remove the secretary from office for a breach of the code. Motion 4 failed to pass by ordinary resolution at the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 19 June 2025.
• [5] At the same EGM, the secretary submitted a motion (Motion 5) to remove the first applicant from office. Motion 5 was passed by ordinary resolution.
• [6] The applicants contend that there has been a clear breach of the code by the committee. They assert that Motion 4 was defeated despite a clear breach of the code and that Motion 5 was carried without a legitimate reason.
• [7] The applicants want the committee to be removed for an alleged breach of the code. The question then is whether the order sought is warranted.

• [8] The application seeks the following outcome:

We would like an order to remove the committee, citing the decision made regarding motion 4 that was made at the EGM which was held on 19th June 2025. That the committee is in breach of schedule 1A, (5), and section 101B of the Code of Conduct for Committee Voting Members of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (QLD).

• [9] Heritage Court Caboolture community titles scheme 2299 (Heritage Court Caboolture) is a 9-lot scheme at Caboolture. The community management statement (CMS) indicates the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building unit plan 13366.

• [10] 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 the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or the performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions in the Act.[2]

• [11] This application was lodged on 15 July 2025. The Commissioner sought further clarification from the applicants about the application.[3] The application was then amended.[4]
• [12] The Commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee and all owners.[5] One submission was received from the chairperson on behalf of the committee. The applicants responded to the submission.[6]
• [13] The application was referred to department adjudication.[7] I have investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and the submission.[8]

• [14] The chairperson, on behalf of the committee for Heritage Court Caboolture, opposes the application. They submit:
  1. The application is challenging the democratic outcome of a properly convened general meeting.
  2. The application is based on disagreement with the outcome of a vote, not a breach of the legislation.
  3. There is not substantiated evidence of misconduct which justifies removing the committee.
  4. The motion to remove the secretary was defeated by 7 votes to 2 and is a valid exercise of owners' rights.
  5. Nothing in the Act prevents the body corporate or committee members from voting against a motion to remove another committee member.
  6. An alleged breach of the code does not automatically require the removal of a committee member.
  7. The correspondence referred to in the application involves interpersonal conflict rather than a demonstrable breach of the code warranting removal.
  8. There has been no legislative breach by the committee.
  9. The body corporate has the power to remove a committee member by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.
• [15] The applicants responded to the submission. Most relevantly, they submit:
  1. They are not just dissatisfied with voting outcomes. They are concerned about a "sustained pattern of conduct" in breach of statutory duties and the code.
  2. There is recent conduct of the committee which falls short of code requirements and statutory duties to act honestly, fairly, and reasonably. This includes excluding the body corporate manager from votes outside of committee meetings (VOCM), refusing to provide records to the manager and owners, and failing to fill committee vacancies.
  3. Owners were not notified of a decision made by a VOCM, which denied owners their right of opposition under the Standard Module.
  4. The committee approved legal counsel by a VOCM which exceeded the committee spending limit. There was also no budget allocation.
  5. Additional orders are sought that the committee:
     • Comply with the VOCM process.
     • Rescind any VOCM which exceeds the committee's spending limit and put them to a general meeting.
     • Fill all committee vacancies as per the regulations.
     • Provide all requested records within statutory timeframes.
     • Cooperate with the manager unless they are lawfully replaced at a general meeting.
  6. Alternatively, if the adjudicator's findings are sufficiently serious, remove the current committee from office instead of granting the additional orders sought.

• [16] Although the applicants are dissatisfied with the outcomes of motions 4 and 5 at the EGM held on 19 June 2025, I note that the application is not seeking to overturn these decisions. However, the application appears to rely on the outcomes of the EGM as grounds for the order sought to remove the committee. The applicants argue that these outcomes demonstrate a clear personal attack by the committee against the first applicant. Therefore, I will discuss motions 4 and 5 before turning to the central question of whether to make an order removing the committee.

Relevant legislation for removing committee members

• [17] The legislation provides 2 distinct ways to remove a committee member from office - specifically, by ordinary resolution at a general meeting,[9] or alternatively, if the removal is for a breach of the code, pursuant to a more protracted process prescribed in the applicable regulation module.[10]
• [18] Section 101B of the Act specifies that the code applies to each voting committee member and that each member is taken to have agreed to comply with the code on becoming a member.[11]
• [19] Relevantly for this dispute, section 45 of the Standard Module stipulates that to remove a committee member from office for a breach of the code, the body corporate must first resolve, by ordinary resolution at a general meeting, to issue a written notice to the member.[12] The written notice must state the following:
  1. that the body corporate believes the member has breached a stated provision of the code
  2. details identifying the breach in not more than 600 words
  3. that the member may give a written response, in not more than 600 words, within 21 days after being given the notice
  4. that the body corporate will pay the member all postage charges and photocopy expenses reasonably incurred by the member in giving the written response (if asked by the member)
  5. that the body corporate will consider a motion to remove the member from office at the next general meeting called at the end of the 21-day response period.[13]
• [20] Therefore, to remove a committee member from office for a breach of the code, 2 general meetings are required. The first general meeting is to vote on issuing the written notice to the member detailing the alleged breach of the code and the second general meeting is to vote on the member's removal from office.

• [21] The wording of the order sought specifically refers to "the decision made regarding motion 4" as the basis for removing the committee for an alleged breach of Item 5 of the code.
• [22] The first applicant's motion to remove the secretary was worded as follows:

Moved that Gordon Tunstall be removed as a member of the committee citing that he is in breach of schedule 1A, (5), and section 101B of the Code of Conduct for Committee Voting Members of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (QLD).

• [23] Significantly, I can find nothing in the submitted material to suggest that the body corporate voted at a previous general meeting to issue a written notice to secretary, or that any opportunity was given to the secretary to respond. From the wording of Motion 4, it appears that the first applicant attempted to remove the secretary from office for an alleged breach of the code without using the prescribed process. In submitting Motion 4, it was not open to the first applicant to bypass the requirement for the body corporate to first issue a written notice to the member detailing the alleged breach. Had Motion 4 passed, the validity of the motion and the body corporate's decision to pass it may have been the subject of an application.
• [24] The applicants also contend that the committee cannot vote against a motion to remove a member when there is evidence that clearly proves there was a breach of the code. Aside from the fact that the prescribed process in section 45 of the Standard Module was not followed, this argument is misconceived on 2 critical points.
• [25] First, the decision on Motion 4 was not made by the committee or individual committee members. At a general meeting (specifically, an EGM or an annual general meeting), motions are voted on by individual owners as members of the body corporate.[14]
• [26] Second, a breach of the code does not necessitate removal from office. Section 101B of the Act specifies that if a member breaches the code, they may be removed from office in accordance with the process prescribed in the regulation. Moreover, a breach of the code does not affect the eligibility of a committee member.[15]

• [27] In their grounds, the applicants refer to the fact that Motion 5 was carried by the committee without any legitimate reason.
• [28] Motion 5 was worded as follows:

That the Body Corporate remove Barry Wilson as an ordinary committee member.

• [29] Relevantly, the wording of Motion 5 makes no reference to an alleged breach of the code by the first applicant. Also, I can find nothing in the submitted material to suggest that there was an explanatory note referencing code provisions.
• [30] It is widely accepted that if a committee member is removed from office by ordinary resolution (and the proposed removal is not related to any alleged code breach), then no reason or justification is required to accompany the motion.[16] Distinct from the detailed code process, an ordinary resolution at a single general meeting will suffice to remove a committee member from office where the code is not cited.[17]
• [31] Moreover, as I noted earlier in relation to Motion 4, Motion 5 was voted on by individual owners, not the committee or committee members.

• [32] I will now turn to the central question of whether it is appropriate to make an order removing the committee.
• [33] The substantive issue with the order sought is that the applicants have failed to comply with the legislative process prescribed in section 45 of the Standard Module to remove a committee member for an alleged breach of the code. It is not open to the applicants to simply circumvent this process by applying for adjudication. I echo the observations of other adjudicators that the Act does not contemplate an adjudicator making an order to remove a committee member from office.[18]
• [34] The applicants have not yet attempted to remove each committee member at a general meeting in accordance with section 45 of the Standard Module. Until the applicants have tried to remove each committee using this procedure and failed, there is currently not a dispute within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[19]
• [35] A further issue with the order sought is that the applicants are trying to remove the committee. Section 101B of the Act stipulates that the code applies to each person who is a voting member of the committee, not the committee collectively.[20] It follows that the applicants have erred in seeking to remove the committee for allegedly breaching the code rather than individual members.
• [36] Furthermore, while the applicants have attempted to create a link (albeit tenuous) between the outcomes of motions 4 and 5 and an alleged breach of Item 5 of the code by the committee, the applicants have not provided any clear explanation as to how individual committee members have supposedly breached Item 5 of the code. However, in view of the inherent flaws with the order sought (namely, the failure to use the section 45 process and attempting to remove the committee collectively) there is no reason to delve further into these issues.
• [37] Consequently, the applicants have not satisfied me that there is any legislative basis for an order to remove the committee.

Additional orders sought in the response to the submission

• [38] The applicants raise different concerns and seek corresponding additional orders in their response to the submission.
• [39] Significantly, the application was not amended pursuant to section 245 of the Act to include the additional orders sought. It would be contrary to the principles of natural justice for me to consider orders which have not been put to the respondent or owners in the scheme.
• [40] However, for completeness, I will make some brief comments. If the applicants are genuinely concerned about certain committee decisions or processes, trying to remove the committee collectively for a breach of the code is not an appropriate mechanism for resolving such issues.
• [41] If the applicants dispute the validity of a particular committee decision or action, including if they assert it has not followed the required process, and they are unable to resolve it directly, they could bring an application challenging that. If the applicants want the committee to take certain actions, the legislation specifies that an owner can submit a written motion to the committee for a decision.[21] If the committee rejects an owner's motion or does not decide it within the legislated decision period,[22] depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to lodge an application challenging that.

• [42] For the reasons outlined above, the applicants have not established that there is any legislative basis to grant an order to remove the committee. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
• [43] I encourage the parties to increase their understanding of the relevant legislation by referring to the ample educational resources available on the website of the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management.

[1] Section 276 of the Act

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[9] Section 44(2)(f) of the Standard Module

[10] Sections 44(2)(g) and 45 of the Standard Module and section 101B(3) of the Act

[11] Section 101B(1) and (2) of the Act

[12] Section 45(2) of the Standard Module

[13] Section 45(2) of the Standard Module

[14] Section 101(1) of the Standard Module

[15] Sections 10 and 44 of the Standard Module

[16] Balmattum [2018] QBCCMCmr 96 at 47; Pacific Haven - North Caloundra Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 292 at 25

[17] Section 44(2)(f) of the Standard Module

[18] Schedule 5 of the Act; Flinders Village [2025] QBCCMCmr 233 at 104 and 105; Reef Royale [2023] QBCCMCmr 445 at 88; River Plaza [2023] QBCCMCmr 125 at 25

[19] Reef Royale [2023] QBCCMCmr 445 at 90; Lake Heron Villas [2025] QBCCMCmr 106 at 13

[20] Sandcastles [2025] QBCCMCmr 258 at 61; section 101B(1) of the Act

[22] Sections 58(3)(a) and (7)(a) of the Standard Module