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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - whether the body corporate should be prevented from removing a lock barrel installed in the applicants' front door without body corporate approval until final orders can determine whether body corporate approval was required and whether it was unreasonably withheld.

Act, ss 100(5), 279; Accommodation Module, s 177; Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

1. The body corporate must not remove the new lock barrel from the front door of lot 12310.
2. This interim order will remain in effect for one year, or until ended or amended as set out at section 279(2) of the Act, whichever is earlier.

• [1] Mr and Ms Hubbard installed a combination lock on their letterbox on common property, a lockbox within it, and they changed the lock barrel in their front door. The body corporate claimed they required body corporate approval for these changes and removed the combination lock and lockbox from their letterbox. Mr and Mrs Hubbard sought retrospective approval for the new lock barrel but the body corporate committee voted it down in late June 2025. The minutes of the decision and the body corporate manager's subsequent correspondence indicated the new barrel may be removed by the body corporate if Mr and Ms Hubbard did not remove it within seven days.
• [2] Mr and Ms Hubbard seek orders in the following terms:

1. Reimbursement for Damages to Lockbox and Non-Liability for Removal Costs

3. Return of our Combination Lock or replacement if damaged

• [3] Until their application can be decided in some months' time, after all affected parties have had a proper opportunity to make submissions, Mr and Ms Hubbard seek an interim order directing the body corporate to take no further action in relation to the dispute. They fear the body corporate will reinstate the former lock barrel, disrupting the access of their paying guests and cleaners. They say they use the lot for short-term letting and have bookings well in advance. They live on the Gold Coast and will be overseas from 14 August, so they could not easily restore their guests' access or help them retrieve belongings from the lot if the lock barrel was changed during a booking.
• [4] I am only concerned with the application for an interim order at this stage, which may be granted if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1] Interim orders are typically appropriate where an applicant raises serious legal questions with prospects of success at final orders, and where more inconvenience would be caused by refusing the interim order than granting it if the opposite conclusion is ultimately reached at final orders.
• [5] Mr and Ms Hubbard question the basis for the committee's decision to decline approval for their new lock barrel. They say "it lacks clear justification under the by-laws and there is no legislated requirement to be part of the Master Key system". They say they are adhering to all the proposed conditions of approval in the motion considered by the committee and are confused by the committee's refusal.
• [6] A letter sent by the body corporate manager on 5 June 2025 claims breaches of by-laws 5.1 and 24.2(b). By-law 5.1 says "an occupier must not, without Body Corporate written approval, mark, paint, drive nails, screws, or other objects into, or otherwise damage or deface a structure that forms part of the Common Property". It is unclear at this stage whether the front door is within Mr and Ms Hubbard's lot, on the boundary of the lot and common property, or entirely on the common property. The boundary between the lot and the common property sits at the centre of the wall that separates them.[2] No evidence has been submitted that establishes where the door is in relation to that line.
• [7] In any case, by-law 5.2 says by-law 5.1 does not apply to an owner who installs "any locking or other safety device for the protection of the Lot against intruders or to improve safety within the Lot". At face value, that seems to apply to the new lock barrel, which Mr and Ms Hubbard say they installed out of concern about unauthorised access to their lot if they remained on the master key system.
• [8] By-law 24.2(b) says an occupier must not without body corporate consent "carry out work to or alter the exterior of the lot or to the Common Property". Changing the lock barrel appears to be an alteration to either the exterior of the lot or the common property, depending how the door is situated within the boundary wall. But Mr and Ms Hubbard do not live in the lot, so it is not obvious that they should be considered occupiers. The by-laws define "occupier" to mean:

(c) a tenant or lessee (registered or otherwise) of a Lot or part of a Lot; and

• [9] That seems to only apply to an owner who is also "any occupier of a lot".
• [10] The body corporate committee suggests the new lock barrel is "an unapproved lot owner improvement to common property". Owners require body corporate approval to make improvements to the common property for the benefit of their lots.[3] But it is not obvious that the new lock barrel is an improvement. An improvement should generally have the effect of adding to the quality or usefulness of the common property.[4] In this case, a lock barrel was removed and replaced with another lock barrel. The value or utility of the common property was not enhanced. The only change is presumably that the front door can now be opened with a different key.
• [11] There is a question to resolve at final orders about whether body corporate approval was required for the new lock barrel.
• [12] If it was, there is a further question about whether the committee acted reasonably when refusing approval as required by section 100(5) of the Act.

The word "reasonably" is used in its ordinary sense and "act reasonably" has a corresponding meaning. Reasonable action is evidence-based and rational.[5]

• [13] Neither the minutes of the committee's decision nor the body corporate manager's correspondence with Mr and Ms Hubbard reveal the reasons for the committee's refusal. It is difficult to anticipate what the committee's objections may have been. One lock barrel was exchanged for another. The appearance of the door was unchanged. If the committee had some doubts or concerns about the change, it does not seem to have raised them with Mr and Ms Hubbard so they could endeavour to address them. Quoting Justice Carmody once more:

... the committee could not properly exercise its discretion in line with BCCM demands without, at least, genuinely looking for ways of granting, as well as reasons for denying, permission.[6]

• [14] The committee argues the balance of convenience does not favour an interim order as the only inconvenience Mr and Ms Hubbard may suffer is the reinstatement of their former lock barrel, while the body corporate may be in breach of fire safety regulations if restrained from acting (as the front door is a fire door). The committee fears increased insurance premiums, fines, and risks to personal safety.
• [15] The body corporate does not explain how changing a lock barrel might contravene fire safety regulations. It is not obvious that it might. The door is substantially the same, except it can be operated by a different key. Mr and Ms Hubbard say the new lock barrel is otherwise identical to the old. The body corporate has not disputed that claim.
• [16] The likelihood of inconvenience to Mr and Ms Hubbard seems higher given the considerations summarised in paragraph three above. I will make an interim order to prevent the body corporate from removing the new lock barrel prior to final orders.

[2] Land Title Act 1994, s 49C(4).

[3] Accommodation Module, s 177.

[4] K. D. Dorney KC, O'Neill, J. v Perrins, W. & Body Corporate For Bayview Mansions CTS 9302 [2008] QCCTBCCM 22 [30]-[33].

[5] Carmody J, Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [23].