The Proprietors - Villa Casablanca GTP 107004 (second respondent)

Section 77 of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) (BUGT Act); Section 179A of the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (Qld) (IRD Act)

BY-LAWS - whether a residential body corporate may revoke automatic access over a primary thoroughfare relating to an alleged breach(es) of parking by-laws - whether a body corporate can or should be compelled to notify a proprietor of a lot of the processes it employs for by-law enforcement.

• [1] The applicant is the owner of a lot in a body corporate (Villa Casablanca), which is part of the development known as the Hope Island Resort. This application is about access via roadway to the applicant's lot and the enforcement of parking by-laws.
• [2] The applicant accesses her lot via road through a boom-gate. The applicant has an electronic remote device to open the boom-gate. In 2023 and 2024, the device was deactivated on several occasions ostensibly in relation to the applicant's breaches of parking by-laws. With the device deactivated, the applicant did not have automatic access through the boom-gate and could only access her lot if she contacted someone to open the gate remotely. The applicant initially received conflicting reports about which respondent - Villa Casablanca or the Hope Island Resort principal body corporate (PBC) - had directed the deactivation.
• [3] The applicant claims the disabling of her device and the resulting restriction on ability to self-access her lot is contrary to the legislation. She seeks orders restraining the relevant bodies corporate from disabling her remote access in the future.
• [4] Claiming the parking by-laws are being inconsistently and unfairly enforced, the applicant has also been asking the respondents for further information about their process for enforcement. She seeks orders requiring the respondents corporate to "spell-out" those processes.
• [5] The disputes themselves appear relatively straightforward. However, the regulatory regime that applies to the more than 50 bodies corporate in the Hope Island Resort is particularly complex, both from a procedural and a substantive perspective. Accordingly, much of the initial part of this decision describes the organisational structure of the resort and relevant legislation.
• [6] In terms of the substance of the dispute, I am satisfied the PBC was not involved in the deactivation of the applicant's remote device and is not asserting she has contravened its by-laws. Accordingly, I have dismissed the application against that respondent. Although I am satisfied Villa Casablanca directed the deactivation of the device, where it now acknowledges it does not have power to do so, I have also dismissed that aspect of the application. Where I am not satisfied either of the bodies corporate are obligated to advise the applicant of their processes for enforcing by-laws, I also cannot make the second order sought.

• [7] The Hope Island Resort development was created under and is regulated by the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (IRD Act).[1] Pursuant to the IRD Act, a principal body corporate was constituted for the development and is known as the Hope Island Resort PBC.
• [8] As part of the development process, and as contemplated by the IRD Act, parts of PBC land were registered as separate residential bodies corporate pursuant to the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) (BUGT Act). One of those bodies corporate is Villa Casablanca, which is formally described as 'The Proprietors - Villa Casablanca group titles plan 107004.' Villa Casablanca consists of 60 lots and common property.[2] As a residential body corporate in the Hope Island Resort development, Villa Casablanca is a member of the PBC.[3]
• [9] The applicant making this application is a proprietor (in other words, an owner) of Lot 21 in Villa Casablanca.
• [10] The first respondent is the PBC.
• [11] The second respondent is Villa Casablanca.

• [12] The Hope Island Resort development was created under and is regulated by IRD Act.[4]
• [13] Sites developed under the IRD Act must have both a primary thoroughfare and a secondary thoroughfare, both of which must include a road.[5] Every lawful occupier of land within a site has a right of way over those thoroughfares as follows:

Subject to the application of any primary thoroughfare by-law or any secondary thoroughfare by-law, every person who lawfully occupies any land within the site has a right of way over the primary thoroughfare and that part of the secondary thoroughfare that is within the stage occupied by the person.[6]

• [14] A site developed under the IRD Act must also be divided into precincts, with the general nature of the intended development and use of the land to be described.[7] Hope Island Resort includes precincts with varying uses, including, residential, retail and marina, and it includes land that is the primary thoroughfare and secondary thoroughfare land.
• [15] More than 50 bodies corporate have been formed in the course of the development of the Hope Island Resort. They are arranged in a hierarchy consisting of three levels.

• [16] The primary thoroughfare body corporate (Primary Thoroughfare BC) is the highest level of body corporate in the development. Its members are the bodies corporate on the second level of the hierarchy, namely the bodies corporate for the various non-residential precincts and the PBC.
• [17] The Primary Thoroughfare BC is responsible for the control, management, and administration of the primary thoroughfare.[8] It may pass special resolutions to make, amend and repeal by-laws for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the primary thoroughfare (PT By-laws).[9] There are, however, some limitations to this power. A PT By-law cannot unreasonably restrict the access of an occupier with an access right unless the occupier agrees in writing.[10] Further, PT By-laws are not capable of operating to prohibit, destroy or modify any easement or service right created or implied under the Act.[11]
• [18] The PT By-laws are binding on a slew of bodies corporates and persons, including on all owners of lots within the site.[12]

• [19] The PBC is on the second level of bodies corporate at Hope Island Resort and is a member of the Primary Thoroughfare BC. Among other things, the PBC is responsible for the control, management, and administration of the secondary thoroughfares.[13]
• [20] In terms of its powers, subject to the IRD Act, the PBC:

... shall have the powers, authorities, duties and functions conferred or imposed on it by or under this Act or the development control by-laws ...[14]

• [21] The PBC is expressly permitted to pass special resolutions to make, amend and repeal by-laws for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of secondary thoroughfares or improvements thereon (ST By-laws).[15] There are, however, some limitations to this power. ST By-laws are not capable of operating to prohibit, destroy or modify any easement or service right created or implied under the Act.[16] Further, a ST By-law cannot unreasonably restrict the access of an occupier with an access right unless the occupier agrees in writing.[17]
• [22] The ST By-laws are binding on the PBC, its members (the residential bodies corporate), and owners and occupiers of lots in a residential body corporate.[18] The PBC is required to do all things reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the development control by-laws (DC By-laws), the ST by-laws, and the control, management and administration of the secondary thoroughfares.[19] It is empowered to "take such legal action as may be necessary to enforce" the DC By-laws and the ST By-laws.[20]

• [23] As part of the development of the site, lots in residential precincts were variously sub-divided and/or amalgamated and separate residential bodies corporate were registered under the BUGT Act. Each of those residential bodies corporate - of which there are more than 30 - is a member of the PBC.[21] Bodies corporate in the residential precincts of the resort are thus considered to be the third level of the hierarchy.
• [24] Villa Casablanca is one such residential body corporate. It is registered under, and has the powers and functions described in, the BUGT Act. Under that Act, Villa Casablanca has the power to make by-laws for the purpose of the control, management, administration use or enjoyment of the lots and its own common property.[22]

• [25] The applicant originally sought two orders against Villa Casablanca, the first is to restrain it from:

... revoking the use of remote gate access equipment until such time as the process is fully documented and ratified via a vote at an EGM or AGM

• [26] The applicant also sought a second order requiring Villa Casablanca to ensure it:

... introduces a process that clearly spells out the process that will be followed in the event of By-Law breaches.

• [27] As described in more detail below, the original application was amended to add the PBC as a respondent. It became the first respondent as it is the more senior in the Hope Island Resort hierarchy of bodies corporate.
• [28] The amended application distributed to the parties named the PBC as a respondent but, due to an administrative oversight, it did not include the applicant's request to seek the same two orders against the PBC that were sought against Villa Casablanca. In responding to my investigations, the executive committee for the PBC alerted me to this omission. Where I have determined to dismiss the application against the PBC, and there was no detriment to that party, I decided not to re-circulate the amended application to the PBC for its comments.

• [29] The way in which disputes between and among owners and various bodies corporate that form the Hope Island Resort may be resolved, is particularly complex. Indeed, at least three pieces of legislation may apply to the combination of parties and disputes presented.
• [30] The applicant names two respondents. A threshold question is whether a referee has jurisdiction to make determinations about the applicant's dispute with each of the respondents. Thus, I must first confirm that, as a referee, I have jurisdiction to make determinations and issue orders to resolve the dispute(s) between the applicant and each of the respondents.

• [31] Villa Casablanca was registered under the BUGT Act as a body corporate in a residential precinct of the Hope Island Resort and is substantively regulated by the BUGT Act.[23]
• [32] The BUGT Act also provides for the resolution by a referee of some disputes involving Villa Casablanca. In relevant part, the BUGT Act provides that a proprietor may apply for orders from a referee including to settle a dispute or rectify a complaint, about the exercise of powers or performance of functions conferred or imposed by the BUGT Act. In response to such an application, a referee has a general power to make orders pursuant to section 77(1) and the power to make the more specific orders described in sections 75 to 94B of the BUGT Act.
• [33] In this case, the applicant is a proprietor of a lot in Villa Casablanca, seeking an order to settle a dispute with the body corporate about its exercise of powers or performance of functions under the BUGT Act. Prima facie, I am satisfied I have jurisdiction and power under the BUGT Act to make orders for the dispute between the applicant and the Villa Casablanca.
• [34] The Villa Casablanca Committee and all proprietors in that scheme were invited to make submissions about the application.[24] The secretary and the owners of two lots made submissions. The applicant was given a copy of the submissions and responded to them.[25] I investigated the application, including by reviewing the submitted material and seeking further information from both the applicant and the committee for Villa Casablanca.

• [35] During the submissions period, the applicant inquired whether the application could be amended to name the PBC and the body corporate manager as respondents. The applicant later confirmed she wished to proceed to name the PBC as a respondent.
• [36] Subject to certain conditions, an application may be amended at any time before an order is made. To proceed with an amended application, a referee must be satisfied the amended application has been served on every party to whom the referee has given written notice of the application.[26] The party must receive a copy of the amendment and advice that it is entitled to make within a time specified in the notice further written submissions to the referee.
• [37] Villa Casablanca is the original respondent and, as a party, it received written notice of the original application. When the application was amended, the PBC and each of its members, namely each of the Hope Island Resort residential bodies corporate, were given notice of the application (as amended) and invited to make a submission. Given Villa Casablanca is a member of the PBC, I am satisfied it subsequently received notice of the amended application and was given the opportunity to provide any additional comments.[27]

• [38] The functions and powers of the PBC are described in the IRD Act and the DC By-laws.[28]
• [39] Where dispute resolution is concerned, the IRD Act allows some disputes relating to the PBC to be dealt with pursuant to the processes found in part 5 of the BUGT Act.[29] However, those processes are only available where a referee is first satisfied the applicant has made reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute by using internal dispute resolution processes.[30]
• [40] In this case, I am satisfied the applicant has made reasonable attempts to resolve her dispute with the PBC. The body corporate manager (BCM) for both Villa Casablanca and the PBC during the relevant period April - November 2024 was Stratacare.[31] I am satisfied by the applicant's evidence that she sought to resolve her disputes with both respondents by raising her concerns in a series of emails from May to August 2024 with Stratacare.[32] I also accept the applicant's representations that the committees for both the PBC and the primary thoroughfare body corporate were being disbanded at the time. In those circumstances, I consider her attempts were reasonable in the circumstances.
• [41] I am also satisfied I have jurisdiction to make orders about the dispute between the applicant (a lawful occupier) and the PBC because the dispute concerns rights of access to a lot and relates to parcels (including thoroughfares) in the Hope Island Resort.[33]

• [42] The applicant explains that Hope Island Resort comprises a number of communities which are accessed through a gate via a remote access electronic device. She says the gates are monitored from a central position by a security company (Hope Island Security).
• [43] The applicant says over several months in 2024, some residents in breach of the parking by-laws had their electronic access devices turned off making it necessary for them to contact the Hope Island Security to open the gate. She says residents of Villa Casablanca were not notified of this new process. She claims she is negatively impacted when her remote is deactivated because she enters the gate more than 5 times a day and there is a delay of several minutes while she calls the security team (not at the gate) to open it remotely for her.
• [44] The applicant asserts that the applicable by-laws do not give Villa Casablanca or Hope Island Security the right to disable her automatic access. In addition, she says by disabling her remote access, the committee is changing the rights and privileges of owners in breach of section 46 of the BUGT Act. Further, she says the body corporate introduced this new process of disabling access without making residents aware of the change or the process.
• [45] Finally, in email correspondence included with the application, the applicant claims the committee is enforcing Villa Casablanca's parking by-laws inconsistently by applying the rules for some residents but not others. For example, in one email she advised the BCM that she had observed more than 6 residents consistently parking their cars in the visitor carpark, with some residents leaving multiple vehicles there permanently. In another email, she noted a committee member parked his car in the visitor carpark for 8 months with no ramifications. In other emails she attached photos of vehicles she claimed were breaching the parking by-laws. Despite repeated violations, she noted no action had been taken against other residents.

• [46] The owners of two lots in Villa Casblanca made submissions. One lot owner submission supported Hope Island Security and Villa Casablanca's method of dealing with parking issues by restricting resident's remote access. Those owners say residents consistently parking in visitor parking spaces significantly restrict the already limited visitor parking and create frustration and inconvenience for other residents of Villa Casablanca. They understand parking breaches are first dealt with by a notice of breach and, if ignored, Hope Island Security takes the next step of restricting remote access to the security gates for a day, and then for longer periods if breaches continue. They say the process is a fair way of managing the issue, without the financial impact of fines or inconvenience of towing.
• [47] Another submission also opposes the application on the grounds that the by-laws regarding parking are transparent, have been communicated effectively, and with no ambiguity about the expectations placed on residents. They say the applicant has been parking a large transit-type business van in visitor spaces for years and continues to do so in disregard of the regulations, inconvenience to other residents, and despite daily notices. They say the decision by Hope Island Security to disable the access device is necessary and justified. They consider the applicant's claim that she has been targeted and unfairly breached is ludicrous.

• [48] The committee for Villa Casablanca submits that, pursuant to the IRD Act, the primary and secondary thoroughfares are controlled and managed by the PBC or the Primary Thoroughfare BC. It says residents pay the PBC and the Primary Thoroughfare BC to maintain the gates. It says Villa Casablanca does not have the authority or power to revoke remote gate access.
• [49] In terms of the second order sought regarding enforcement processes for parking by-laws, the committee said it intended to present a motion at the 2024 annual general meeting to alter the existing by-laws regarding parking and the process to deal with visitor parking breaches.

• [50] The executive committee of the PBC says the PBC is responsible for maintaining and governing all secondary thoroughfare infrastructure, other assets, and secondary thoroughfare common property of the PBC located within the gated community of residential lot owners.
• [51] With regards to the remote device, it states a PBC initiative came into effect across all PBC secondary thoroughfare common property on 1 March 2024. That initiative was about "approved enforcement procedures for repeated traffic offences." The executive committee says the initiative was not a directive to its members. Rather, it says Villa Casablanca (one of its members) chose to adopt the PBC initiative for its own common property. It says the application involves Villa Casablanca's independent decision about the applicant's remote device and the PBC has no orders to respond to or intervene in.
• [52] Regarding the second order sought by the applicant, the PBC says it is not involved in the governance or management of Villa Casablanca's common property nor is it responsible for the enforcement of Villa Casablanca's By-Laws. As such, the introduction and enforcement process for visitor parking by-laws within Villa Casablanca By-Law fall under the jurisdiction of the Villa Casablanca Body Corporate and outside the PBC's area of governance.

• [53] The applicant explains she has resided with her family at Villa Casablanca for more than 15 years. She says she was previously permitted to park her vehicle in an area that was not designated as a visitor car park. However, about a year ago, the PBC reclassified the area for visitors.[34] She says the PBC also prohibits her from parking on any of the numerous available spaces on the road. Although she has repeatedly requested meetings to discuss and find an amicable solution to this issue, there has been no response.
• [54] The applicant says her vehicle has been singled because she disagrees with the policies of the committee for Villa Casablanca. She says she has documented and has photos, of multiple instances of other residents - including committee members - continuously breaching visitor parking by-laws. Despite those violations being noted in committee meetings and reported to Hope Island Security, no action has been taken against these residents. She says such selective enforcement is unfair and discriminatory.
• [55] She says the secretary for Villa Casablanca has confirmed that there are no by-laws regarding parking violations that involve disabling remote access. Although the committee denies it has the authority to revoke access, she says it voted to instruct Hope Island Security to do so.

• [56] Turning now to the substance of the dispute and whether to make the orders sought.

• [57] The applicant says her remote device for the access gate has been deactivated on several occasions, the first time was for a week in December 2023, and the second time was for a month starting in July 2024. I am satisfied that the applicant tried on multiple occasions to establish which body corporate had directed Hope Island Security to deactivate her device.
• [58] In its submission, the committee for Villa Casablanca stated: "the Villa Casablanca Body Corporate does not have the authority or power to revoke remote gate access."
• [59] In light of the applicant's demonstrated difficulty in establishing which party had ordered the deactivation of the device, I sought further information from Villa Casablanca about its role, if any, in deactivating the applicant's device. Included with Villa Casablanca's response were the following documents:
  1. A copy of a circular dated March 2024 to each owner from Hope Island Security describing new enforcement procedures relating to "illegal parking and other vehicle related issues" approved by the PBC.[35] The circular advised,

Upon the recognition of three (3) identified, qualified and communicated offences pertaining to a vehicle or Lot Owner, all access devices (card swipe, Gallagher and/or remote control) registered to that household, will be suspended for a period of one (1) week.

Please note, the household will have access, however this will be facilitate by calling HIR Security via the Gate Entry System.

Following the one (1) week access device suspension period, all access devices will be reactivated by HIR Security. A six (6) month probation period will immediately follow the one (1) week access device suspension period and any further identified and qualified offence within the probation period, will result in an immediate one (1) month suspension of access devices registered to that household.

1. Copies of parking breach notices, all issued on Hope Island Security letterhead and purportedly issued on behalf of the PBC, asserting the applicant had been recorded parking on Magnolia Drive East in contravention of the ST and PT By-laws and warning that failure to comply with the notice and cease parking in contravention of those by-laws "may result in your resort remote access privilege being removed...", including:
   1. A notice dated 8 April 2024 referenced earlier notices and advised the device had been deactivated for a week due to the continued breaches.
   2. A notice dated 15 July 2024 that advised the remote had been deactivated for a month.

1. Copies of similar parking breach notices, also issued on Hope Island Security letterhead and purportedly on behalf of the PBC, asserting the applicant had been recorded parking on Magnolia Drive East in contravention of the ST and PT By-laws and the Villa Casablanca by-laws.

• [60] After the application was amended and circulated to the PBC and its members, the executive committee for the PBC made a submission in which it stated it brought into effect an initiative for all the secondary thoroughfares in March 2024 (PBC Initiative). It said, however, that:

The decision to revoke or modify the use of remote gate access equipment was made by the Villa Casablanca Body Corporate (VCBC) independently. This decision was not a directive from the PBC.

Villa Casablanca chose to adopt a PBC initiative, for their own common property. Noting the PBC initiative came into effect across all PBC secondary thoroughfare common property, 1 March 2024.

Therefore, the PBC has no orders to respond to or intervene in, regarding this matter

• [61] Given the inconsistency between the contravention notices and the PBC's statements, I sought further information from the PBC. The executive committee, through its lawyers, stated:
  1. Minutes show the Villa Casablanca committee noted at an April 2024 meeting that the applicant had received 3 parking by-law contravention notices and lost the use of the automatic entry to the main gates, it also resolved to hold a vote outside committee meeting to adopt the PBC vehicle by-laws enforcement policy.
  2. Sometime in mid-2024, the chairperson of Villa Casablanca verbally directed Hope Island Security (a contractor for the PBC) to deactivate the applicant's gate device however, that direction was given without the knowledge or consent of the PBC.
  3. The correspondence issued by Hope Island Security on 15 July 2024 was not in fact issued on behalf of the PBC, despite the template letter used saying it was on.
  4. The PBC has since directed Hope Island Security that it is not to act upon the direction of subsidiary schemes to deactivate residents' remote access to the gates located on the primary thoroughfares and which provide access to the secondary thoroughfares.
  5. The PBC does not contend that the applicant is breaching its by-laws.[36]
• [62] The PBC also provided a copy of a March 2025 email from a Hope Island Security manager in which he confirms that:
  1. the chairperson of Villa Casablanca verbally advised him that it wished to adopt the PBC enforcement initiative for repeated contraventions on its common property
  2. the 15 July 2024 letter to the applicant was issued pursuant to a verbal direction from the chairperson of Villa Casablanca, and
  3. the PBC has not directed Hope Island Security to implement the PBC initiative for secondary thoroughfare offences on Villa Casablanca common property.
• [63] I also sought information from the PBC about the location of the boom-gate operated by the remote device issued to the applicant. It represented, and I accept, that the boom-gate is on a primary thoroughfare.
• [64] Based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:
  1. the applicant's device remotely operates a boom-gate on the primary thoroughfare
  2. the committee for Villa Casablanca adopted the PBC Initiative
  3. the chairperson of Villa Casablanca ordered Hope Island Security to deactivate the applicant's remote device on at least 2 occasions
  4. the PBC has since directed Hope Island Security that it is not to act upon the direction of subsidiary schemes to deactivate residents' remote access to the security gates, and
  5. Villa Casablanca now takes the position that it does not have the authority or power to revoke remote gate access.
• [65] Where the PBC is concerned, I am satisfied it played no role in deactivating the applicant's remote device.[37] Therefore I do not consider there to be a dispute between these parties, and I have dismissed the application against the PBC.
• [66] Regarding the applicant's dispute with Villa Casablanca, the committee now acknowledges it does not have the power to revoke remote gate access.[38] I agree. I consider the body corporate does not have the power to regulate access over the secondary thoroughfare or the primary thoroughfare because neither land is part of the common property of Villa Casablanca.[39] The power to manage and regulate the secondary thoroughfare has expressly been given to the PBC, and the power to manage and regulate the primary thoroughfare is expressly given to the Primary Thoroughfare BC.[40]
• [67] In addition, the BUGT Act requires the Villa Casablanca body corporate to act reasonably in making or not making a decision.[41] Even if Villa Casablanca could decide to enforce its by-laws by deactivating remote devices, I consider the evidence presented would support a finding that the committee failed to act reasonably in making such a decision where:
  1. over an extended period, the applicant repeatedly requested meetings to discuss an amicable solution to issues with parking her vehicle, and to obtain a better understanding of the process for and consistency of by-law enforcement; and
  2. there are questions whether due process was afforded to the applicant where the notices of parking breaches were issued by Hope Island Security without reference to where on Villa Casablanca land she was purportedly parking in breach of its by-laws and which particular by-law was being contravened.
• [68] As a referee, I have jurisdiction and power to make an order for the settlement of a dispute, or rectification of a complaint. Notwithstanding the above, in my view, there is no longer a dispute about deactivating the device. Not only has Villa Casablanca acknowledged it does not have the power to direct that the applicant's device be deactivated, the PBC has instructed Hope Island Security it is not to act upon subsidiary schemes directions to deactivate residents' remote devices. For those reasons, I consider it is now unnecessary (and would serve no purpose) to make the first order sought against Villa Casablanca and I decline to do so.

• [69] The applicant also seeks an order that both the PBC and Villa Casablanca clearly spell out the processes that each will follow in the event of a by-law breach.
• [70] I infer the applicant sought this order against the PBC when she thought it might be the party deactivating her gate remote device. Where I am satisfied the PBC did not direct the deactivation, and where I accept that the PBC does not contend that the applicant is contravening its by-laws, I am not satisfied the applicant has a live dispute with the PBC. I have thus dismissed the application against the PBC.[42]
• [71] Regarding Villa Casablanca, the applicant does not explain on what legal basis a referee can compel Villa Casablanca to spell out the processes it will follow in the event of a by-law breach.
• [72] The BCCM Act contains multiple provisions that require a body corporate governed by that legislation to take certain specified steps to enforce its by-laws.[43] I consider the general purpose of those provisions is to ensure procedural fairness and natural justice is afforded in circumstances where financial penalties may attach. In contrast, neither the BUGT Act nor the IRD Act prescribe a specific procedural process that must be followed by Villa Casablanca or the PBC to enforce their respective by-laws.[44]
• [73] That said, a body corporate governed by the BUGT Act is obligated - like bodies corporate governed by the BCCM Act - to act reasonably in making or not making decisions.[45] In my view, this includes acting reasonably when making decisions about how it will enforce its by-laws.[46] In my view, Villa Casablanca also has obligations under general law, including a duty to "act in good faith, to make fully considered, rational and reasonable decisions that are not conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust."[47]
• [74] From the correspondence included with the application, it appears that the applicant's primary issue with the process and decisions relating to enforcement of parking by-laws is that she perceives the Villa Casablanca committee to be making inconsistent, biased, and unfair decisions. I infer that she is suggesting the committee has failed to act reasonably in deciding not to provide her with information about its processes in circumstances where it appears the body corporate is making inconsistent decisions about by-law enforcement.
• [75] For its part, the Villa Casablanca committee stated in its submission that:

.... it hopes to be in a position to present to the body corporate at the August AGM a motion to alter the existing by-laws regarding parking and the process to deal with visitor parking breaches.

• [76] It subsequently provided a copy of the new parking and towing by-laws it adopted at its AGM. With limited exception, I do not consider the new by-laws address the processes to be followed in the event of parking breaches.[48] The by-laws do not describe how occupiers will be given notice of a breach, or whether they will be given an opportunity to cease the breach.
• [77] There is certainly some evidence that Villa Casablanca may be enforcing its parking by-laws in an inconsistent manner. However, the applicant has not sought orders about specific by-law enforcement actions against her or the lack of enforcement action against other occupiers. Rather, she is providing the evidence in support of her request for an order that Villa Casablanca clearly spells out the processes it will follow in the event of a by-law breach.
• [78] Although Villa Casablanca has the statutory and general law duties described above, I am not persuaded it is necessarily obligated to spell out a formulaic or specific process (or processes) it will follow for by-law enforcement. Bodies corporate are given fairly broad discretion as to how they manage the common property. Provided Villa Casablanca adheres to its statutory and general law duties when enforcing by-laws, it will be complying with its obligations. For these reasons, I have dismissed this part of the application against Villa Casablanca.

• [79] I have dismissed the application for the reasons given above.
• [80] In closing, I wish to note a few things. Firstly, certain emails included with the materials indicate that the Committee for Villa Casablanca took the position it would not engage in further discussions with the applicant to resolve the dispute about parking or remote deactivation until a referee issued an order for this application. This was misconceived. Parties are encouraged to continue internal dispute resolution while an application is pending.
• [81] Secondly, although beyond the scope of this application, the body corporate's failure to engage with the applicant in response to her repeated questions about its approach to enforcing parking by-laws might also be considered to be unreasonable.
• [82] Finally, notwithstanding my dismissal of the application, assertions that Villa Casablanca may be enforcing its by-laws in an inconsistent and/or biased way, if true, are concerning. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to make a declaration that Villa Casablanca comply with its various obligations.[49] However, in the analysis above I have purposefully described some of the body corporate's obligations and recommend that it carefully review and consider how those obligations apply to its decision making about by-law enforcement.

[1] For a comprehensive explanation of the development and the structure and functions of the various bodies corporate in the Hope Island Resort, see The Proprietors - Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 at [4] - [6], and at [102]-[109].

[2] Those lots are registered on six different plans, with the applicant's lot registered on GRP107025, which is a group title plan of re-subdivision.

[4] See The Proprietors - Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 at [102]

[5] Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the IRD Act

[6] See Section 100(1) of the IRD Act, and see section 100(2)

[8] See Sections 102(5) and 116(1) of the IRD Act. The primary thoroughfare includes roads and may also include facilities.

[9] See Section 178(1) of the IRD Act. Such primary thoroughfare by-laws have no effect until they have been approved by the Minister responsible for the IRD Act and notification of the approval has been published in the gazette. See Section 178(2) of the IRD Act

[15] See Section 179(1) of the IRD Act. ST By-laws have no effect until they have been approved by the Minister responsible for the IRD Act and notification published in the gazette. See id. at Section 178(2)

[16] See Section 179(5) of the IRD Act

[18] See Section 179(4) of the IRD Act

[22] See Section 30(2) of the BUGT Act

[23] The introduction of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act) meant the earlier BUGT Act no longer applies to many bodies corporate. However, there are some exceptions. Relevantly here, the BUGT Act continues in force for plans registered thereunder in relation to a "specified" Act such as the IRD Act. See Sections 325(2) and 326 of the BCCM Act

[24] See Section 73(1)(c) and (d) of the BUGT Act

[25] See Section 73(1)(f) of the BUGT Act

[26] See Section 75(6) of the BUGT Act

[27] I also note the outcomes sought against Villa Casablanca have not changed. I did not consider the application has been amended such as to require notice of the amended application (either pursuant to natural justice or by the BUGT Act) to be given to each proprietor of a lot in Villa Casablanca.

[31] It appears the PBC changed mangers several times during 2024. Cambridge Management Services (Cambridge) was the BCM for the PBC through to around 25 March 2024, and was replaced by Stratacare but later reinstated as the BCM from about November 2024.

[32] For example, the applicant's 13 June 2024 email to Stratacare asking about communication with both the PBC and the Villa Casablanca committees about breaches of the BUGT Act relating to remote access.

[33] See e.g., Sanctuary Cove Principal Body Corporate v Nakahara and Ors (QMC, unreported, Magee, 56211-19, 12 February 2020); Warren v Hope Island Resort Principal Body Corporate (QMC, unreported, Bentley, 2461-24, 2 May 2024) (applicant owner of a lot in residential scheme naming PBC as respondent)

[34] The applicant did not clarify whether this area was part of the secondary thoroughfare or another part of the resort.

[35] I believe this is the PBC Initiative referenced by the executive committee of the PBC.

[36] See PBC 25 March 2025 response at [45]. I infer by "its by-laws", the PBC is referring to the ST By-laws.

[37] I considered that, on its face, the application raised issues that might implicate sections 100 and 179(5) of the IRD Act. Although I made initial inquiries of the PBC of its position about the applicability of those sections, given my findings of fact, I did not need to consider the issue any further.

[38] Even assuming Villa Casablanca was so empowered, I note the decision to deactivate the device arguably alters the rights or privileges of proprietors and could be a decision about a restricted matter the committee was not permitted to make. See Sections 46(1)(b) and 46(2) of the BUGT Act

[39] See The Proprietors - Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 at [48] and [69]. I consider any attempts to do so would likely be inconsistent with the legislation and impermissibly extend the ambit of powers given to the Villa Casablanca Body Corporate.

[40] See Sections 139(6) and 151(1) of the IRD Act

[41] See Section 46(3) of the BUGT Act

[42] Had I determined there was a live dispute with the PBC, to afford procedural fairness, I would have afforded the PBC an opportunity to respond to the orders sought against it.

[43] See Sections 182-188 of the BCCM Act

[44] Also, unlike the BCCM Act, neither the BUGT Act nor the IRD Act contain an exclusive jurisdiction provision. As such, a body corporate seeking to enforce a by-law pursuant to the BUGT or IRD Acts may make an application to a referee or commence proceedings in another competent jurisdiction.

[45] See Section 27(4) of the BUGT Act

[46] See Section 27(3) of the BUGT Act

[47] See _Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backsha_ll [2016] QCATA 177 at [34]. Although Beaches was concerned with a body corporate governed by the BCCM Act, I consider Villa Casablanca is also a body with the power to "administratively affect the rights, interests and reasonable expectations" of proprietors and occupiers, by the choices it makes. As such, in my view, it is subject to the same general law obligations referred to by Carmody J in Beaches.

[48] Clause 15 did provide that occupiers in "continual breach" would be informed and placed on notice they would no longer be permitted to park on the common property of Villa Casablanca or on the Secondary Thoroughfare. It did not define what would amount to a "continual breach" nor for how long an occupier might be banned from parking on the parcel. While it is unclear how the Villa Casablanca can make by-laws about the Secondary Thoroughfare, that question is beyond the scope of this application.

[49] See e.g., Washingtonia [2024] QBCCMCmr 272 at [26]