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

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY - whether the body corporate has validly requested the return of body corporate property - whether the respondent has failed to comply with the request.

Standard Module, s 235

1. The respondent, Kenal Properties Pty Ltd trading as ACE Body Corporate Management (Brisbane North Bays), failed to comply with a prescribed notice for the return of body corporate property, in breach of section 235 of the Standard Module.
2. Within 7 days of this order, at its own cost and with no further charge to the body corporate, the respondent or its principals, must deliver all records, funds and other property of the Body Corporate for Heritage Court Caboolture that are within their possession or control to the body corporate secretary.

• [1] This application relates to the possession of body corporate property.
• [2] The respondent, Kenal Properties Pty Ltd trading as ACE Body Corporate Management (Brisbane North Bays) (ACE), was purportedly engaged as body corporate manager (BCM) at a general meeting in March 2023. The relevant motion proposed a 3-year term. The minutes indicate it was amended to 2-year term, which ended in February 2025, although there appears to be some suggestion that only a 1-year term was agreed to.
• [3] At a general meeting in June 2025 the body corporate resolved to engage a new BCM. However, it seems the respondent it remains engaged under a 3-year agreement.
• [4] On 25 August the committee resolved to require the respondent, within 14 days, to give to the new BCM all body corporate records and assets in its possession or control, including any funds held in the body corporate's bank account or controlled by the respondent.
• [5] The body corporate's solicitors wrote to the respondent on 26 August. The letter included a copy of the committee resolution and requested the return of all body corporate property and assets. It said any dispute about the engagement of ACE was not relevant to compliance with the notice. Further correspondence about the engagement of ACE ensued, with the applicant maintaining its request for the return of its property and assets.
• [6] The body corporate now seeks an order for the return of its property. The questions then are whether the body corporate made a valid request for the return of its property, and whether the respondent has failed to comply with the request.

• [7] Heritage Court Caboolture community titles scheme 2299 is a 9-lot scheme in Caboolture. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 13366.
• [8] The application seeks the following orders:

That Kenal Properties Pty Ltd trading as ACE Body Corporate Management (Brisbane North Bays) be ordered to deliver to the Body Corporate for Heritage Court Caboolture CTS 2299 all records, funds, correspondence, and other property of the Body Corporate in its possession or control.

• [9] 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 performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions. [2]

• [10] This application was lodged on 17 October 2025.
• [11] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[3] The application was subsequently amended.[4]
• [12] The application as amended was authorised by a committee resolution decided outside a committee meeting on 5 November.
• [13] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[5] The respondent and one owner made a submission. The applicant did not initially obtain or respond to the submissions.[6]
• [14] The application was referred to department adjudication.[7]
• [15] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[8]

• [16] The respondent says that ACE is legally appointed as BCM under a valid 3-year agreement and the application should be dismissed because it conflicts with the current exclusive agreement, was commenced without owner authority, breaches legislative requirements, and is based on incorrect factual claims. The submission includes extensive supporting document and most relevantly says:
  1. A 3-year agreement was approved in 2023 and no general meeting has resolved to terminate the agreement.
  2. Attempts to remove the records obstruct ACE's contractual duties and disregard the owners' approved decision.
  3. The application was lodged without general meeting authority, in breach of the Act.
  4. Owners were told there was no management agreement despite confirmed records, undermining informed decision-making and procedural fairness.
  5. The committee has not acted reasonably or in owner's interests.
  6. It seeks the dismissal of the application and various alternative orders.
• [17] The submission from an owner asserts that the engagement of the new BCM in June was invalid because the 3-year engagement of ACE was still current. The also submitter disputes various questions decisions and actions of the committee.

• [18] The sole issue in this application is whether the respondent has failed to comply with a body corporate request to return body corporate property.
• [19] As a preliminary point, the respondent's claim that this application breaches section 312 of the Act because there was no general meeting authorisation for the application misapprehends the legislation. An application under chapter 6 of the Act is a prescribed proceeding.[9] The legislation specifies that a special resolution (which is otherwise required for a body corporate to start a proceeding) is not required to bring or start a prescribed proceeding.[10] A committee resolution was enough to authorise this application.
• [20] Questions about whether ACE was validly engaged as BCM or for how long, whether the committee has acted validly or reasonably, and whether the new BCM has been validly engaged, are beyond the scope of this application. If ACE maintains that it has a current agreement, it is at liberty to pursue that separately. I note that a dispute about the terms of the engagement and any termination of the engagement would appear to be a contractual matter that is a complex dispute, which could only be determined under the Act by a specialist adjudicator or the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.[11] Any owner disputing committee or general meeting decisions can similarly pursue those separately.
• [21] In regard to a body corporate seeking the return of its property, section 235 of the Standard Module provides as follows:
  1. Return of body corporate property

(a) a person has possession or control of any of the following property (the specified property) -

(i) a body corporate asset for a community titles scheme;

(ii) a record or other document of a body corporate;

(b) the person took possession or control of the specified property in the person's capacity, or purportedly in the person's capacity, as -

(i) a member, or an associate of a member, of the body corporate or of the committee; or

(ii) a body corporate manager or service contractor, or an associate of a body corporate manager or service contractor; and

(c) the person is served with a notice of a resolution of the committee requiring the person to give, within 14 days after the person is served with the notice, the specified property to a member of the committee who is named in the notice.

(3) The person may not claim a lien on specified property mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) or (iii).

(a) a notice of a resolution of the committee; or

(b) if a body corporate manager is acting under a chapter 3, part 5 engagement - a notice signed by or for the owners of at least one-half of the lots included in the scheme.

• [22] Adjudicators have accepted that body corporate funds constitute a body corporate asset, as covered by section 235(1)(a)(i) of the Standard Module.[12]
• [23] It has been consistently accepted that the process in section 235 is not reliant on the expiry, termination, invalidation, or other conclusion of a BCM's engagement. The body corporate's solicitors put the respondent on notice of this, referring it to relevant case law. Body corporate records, funds and other property belong to the body corporate, not its members or agents. A body corporate is entitled to decide who will be in possession and control of its property at any time. Any person in possession or control of body corporate property can be asked to return that property at any time. Whether they are a current or former BCM, a BCM has no legal right to retain body corporate property when they have been asked to return it. A BCM also cannot claim a lien in respect of records and the seal.
• [24] It is evident the respondent took possession or control of the body corporate's property in its capacity as a BCM. I am satisfied the correspondence sent to the respondent on 26 August 2025 complied with the requirements for a prescribed notice for the return of that property. There is simply no lawful basis for the respondent to refuse to comply with that notice.
• [25] The respondent had a statutory obligation to return the specified property in its possession or control to the body corporate within 14 days of being served with that notice. The respondent does not dispute that it has not returned the body corporate's property.

• [26] The body corporate made a valid request for the return of its property. The respondent has failed to comply with that request. In doing so, the respondent has contravened section 235 of the Standard Module. Accordingly, I consider it is appropriate to order the respondent to return all body corporate property in its possession or control, including all records and funds, to the body corporate.
• [27] The respondent must return the property within 7 days of this order. The order extends to the respondent's principals and to any body corporate property held by any of the respondent's principals, employees, or agents. The respondent is not entitled to charge the body corporate for the return of the property.
• [28] In the circumstances, I will also make a declaration that the respondent failed to comply with the prescribed notice, in breach of section 235 of the Standard Module.
• [29] The respondent should be aware that the body corporate will be at liberty to take action in the Magistrates Court to enforce this order, if it is not complied with, and to seek a penalty for the relevant offence.[13]

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

[11] Noting section 220 and the definitions of 'contractual matter' and 'complex dispute' in schedule 6 of the Act

[12] For example, 67 Bancroft Road [2021] QBCCMCmr 5 and Clermont Apartments [2022] QBCCMCmr 85

[13] www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/disputes/dispute-services/enforce-orders