King Tide [2025] QBCCMCmr 296 (29 August 2025)

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER - whether committee members who had not paid contributions that had been levied but were not yet due were unable to vote on a motion; whether the body corporate should be prevented from implementing the motion until that question can be decided.

Act, s 279(1); Standard Module, ss 64, 67, 102(2), 162(1)(c), 163(1)(c), 164, 165, 166(1); Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 4.

• [1] On 24 July 2025 the body corporate committee resolved by vote outside a committee meeting to approve a quote for roof repairs. The minutes record that the motion passed with the support of five committee members.
• [2] The applicant's nominee is a committee member but did not vote. He argues that the committee members who did should not have, as they owed body corporate debts. Contributions to the administrative and sinking fund due to be paid by 27 July 2025 had not yet been paid at the time of the vote.
• [3] The applicant seeks final orders in the following terms:

1. That the motion passed by way of a vote outside committee meeting held on 24 July 2025 be declared not passed and otherwise void and of no effect.

2. That the body corporate call a committee meeting, or arrange a further vote outside a committee meeting, within seven (7) days.

• [4] To prevent the motion from being implemented prior to final orders, the applicant also seeks an interim order:

That the body corporate immediately notify Ryan Roofing not to commence the building work the subject of Quote No 31928 until further notice.

• [5] I am only concerned with the application for an interim order at this stage. An interim order can be made if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1] An applicant must generally raise a serious legal question with prospects of success at final orders, often referred to as a prima facie case, before it will be appropriate to interfere with the legal rights of the respondent ahead of a final decision on the application.

• [6] A committee member who owes a body corporate debt, or is the nominee of someone who owes a body corporate debt, is unable to vote on committee motions.[2] The definition of body corporate debt includes:

a following amount owed by a lot owner to the body corporate -

(a) a contribution or an instalment of a contribution...[3]

• [7] The applicant argues that on 24 July the committee members owed contributions to the body corporate, due to be paid by 27 July, so they owed body corporate debts and were unable to vote.
• [8] The Act and Standard Module offer no special definition of the word "owe". Its usual meaning includes to be under an obligation to pay or repay.[4]
• [9] The applicant says the obligation to pay arises when a notice of contribution payable is issued, as the notice provides:

... the date (the date for payment) on or before which the contribution, or the instalment of a contribution, must be paid...[5]

• [10] The applicant asks "how a lot owner could make a payment before the 'date for payment' unless there is a body corporate debt".
• [11] The date for payment is actually decided much earlier than when the notice of contribution payable is issued. It is usually decided at an annual general meeting (AGM) in the first three months of the financial year when the body corporate adopts budgets and passes an ordinary resolution to:

(a) fix, on the basis of its budgets for a financial year, the contributions to be levied on the owner of each lot for the financial year; and

(b) decide the number of instalments in which the contributions are to be paid; and

(c) fix the date on or before which payment of each instalment is required.[6]

• [12] On the applicant's interpretation, all owners would owe body corporate debts from the time of the AGM, as that is when dates are set "on or before which payment of each instalment is required". Owners would "owe" contributions to the body corporate from that time and could not vote at committee or general meetings until they paid the year's contributions in advance.[7]
• [13] Anecdotally, that is a novel interpretation. I have yet to hear of a body corporate applying the provisions in that way. Owners are generally not disenfranchised until they have failed to pay their contributions by the due date. Other penalties also do not accrue until then.[8]
• [14] I cannot accept the applicant's interpretation, though I acknowledge the definition of "body corporate debt" could be clearer with respect to unpaid contributions. There is no obligation to pay contributions before the due dates. Early payment is possible and encouraged, but the substantive obligation that is created by fixing a date "on or before which" payment must be made is not to delay payment until after that date. There is no obligation to pay before the due date such that an owner could be said to "owe" contributions (and therefore a body corporate debt) before that date has arrived.
• [15] That is reflected elsewhere in the Standard Module, such as the requirement to issue a notice of contribution payable "at least 30 days before the payment of a contribution, or an instalment of a contribution, is required".[9] It is also consistent with the Standard Module's other provisions designed to encourage timely payment of contributions, such as:
  1. the discount that may be offered on contributions paid before the due date[10]
  2. the penalty interest that may be applied to unpaid contributions after the due date,[11] and
  3. the body corporate's ability to recover unpaid contributions, penalty interest, and recovery costs after the due date.[12]
• [16] On the applicant's interpretation, owners could lose their right to vote at committee and general meetings at a time when they would still qualify for a discount for timely payment of contributions. That cannot be right.
• [17] I foresee little prospect that I will accept that interpretation when final orders are made. It would be inappropriate to interfere with the body corporate's rights on a provisional basis now to preserve the outside chance that I will ultimately declare the committee resolution of 24 July 2025 void.
• [18] However, I acknowledge that the applicant's position is at least arguable. It is not an abuse of language to say that a contribution is owed to the body corporate because it must be paid by a specified future date, notwithstanding that I cannot accept that interpretation in the context of the Standard Module.
• [19] The applicant refers to the definition of an "unfinancial owner" (who is similarly unable to vote) at section 4 of New South Wales' Strata Schemes Management Act 2015:

"unfinancial owner" means an owner of a lot in a strata scheme who has not paid all contributions levied on the owner that are due and payable, and any other amounts recoverable from the owner, in relation to the lot.

• [20] That is a better approach that clearly links a loss of voting rights to the failure to pay contributions "that are due and payable", not merely "owed".

[2] Standard Module, ss 64 & 67.

[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/owe; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/owe; https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/owe; all accessed 28 August 2025.

[5] Standard Module, s 163(1)(c).

[6] Standard Module, s 162(1).

[7] Standard Module, ss 64, 67, 102(2).

[8] Standard Module, s 166(1).

[9] S 163(1).

[10] Standard Module, s 164.

[11] Standard Module, s 165.

[12] Standard Module, s 166(1).