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

REASONABLENESS - where it is alleged that lot owners considered inaccurate information at a general meeting - whether the information was inaccurate or misleading - and if so, whether such inaccurate information infected the body corporate's decision making.

Act, s 94

• [1] This dispute is about the reasonableness of a body corporate decision in having defeated certain motions at a general meeting. These motions relate to the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The applicant seeks an order deeming these motions to have been carried.

• [2] The scheme, Kings Bay Apartments CTS 27406, comprises 22 lots and common property, and has been created under a building format plan of subdivision. The scheme building contains six levels labelled alphabetically.
• [3] Level A contains common property, and the garages of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 which are part and parcel of the said lots. Level B contains common property, portions of Lots 1 and 2, and the garages of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 which are also part and parcel of the said lots. Levels C, D, E and F contain common property and portions of Lots 3 to 22.
• [4] The applicant is a co-owner of Lot 22 and a member of the committee. The respondent is the body corporate.
• [5] Prior to March 2025, the committee conducted various investigations and consulted professionals with a view to proposing an electric vehicle charging solution for the benefit of those lot owners who wished to be able to charge their vehicle at the scheme. Pursuant to this task, the committee presented a detailed report ('Feasibility Report') for perusal by members of the body corporate, which included among other things, the following:
  1. Details of the electricity load distribution at the scheme;
  2. The electrical capacity currently available at the scheme for electric vehicle charging;
  3. Details of peak load periods and why that is relevant to vehicle charging;
  4. Types of electric vehicle chargers (level 1, 2 and 3 chargers) and their suitability for the scheme;
  5. Why it is unlawful to allocate a visitor parking space for electric vehicle charging (i.e., due to certain development approval conditions);
  6. Why it is not appropriate to use existing power points in the parking spaces for electric vehicle charging (electrical overload and the use of the common power supply);
  7. Limitations of the main switchboard and the potential need to replace the same by 2030;
  8. Confirmation by the insurance broker that no additional premiums will be payable as a result of electric vehicle charging at the scheme;
  9. Links and reference to research conducted by EV FireSafe,[1] an organisation endorsed by the Australian Government, the objective of which is to research electric vehicle battery fires, particularly where the electric vehicle is connected to energised charging;
  10. Factors considered when exploring electric vehicle charging solutions, in particular scalability, safety, cost-bearers, maintenance and administration.
• [6] The committee then proceeded to propose a solution for level 1 charging at the scheme, using smart power points connected to Wi-Fi, with cloud-based load demand control and billing. The committee noted that such a solution would offer a pay-per-use feature, queuing features, time programs to inhibit charging during peak times and more.
• [7] In particular, it noted clearly the costs that would have to be borne by the user-owners and the body corporate if this solution was implemented. It noted that the costs of installation and all ongoing costs would have to be borne by the lot owners using this solution; whereas the body corporate would have to pay a sum of $2,423.00 for the installation of new Wi-Fi routers, and further costs for future installation of load limiting meters in the main switchboard.
• [8] This proposal was then presented via two motions tabled at extraordinary general meeting ('EGM') dated 21 March 2025, as follows:

2. INSTALLATION OF EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AT KINGS BAY APARTMENTS

That by ordinary resolution, it is proposed that the following provisions be made to allow the installation of infrastructure for the purpose of providing a power outlet in private carpark spaces for Level 1 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging:

1. Wi-Fi access shall be installed in both the upper and lower carparks to facilitate the activation of the load management feature when required. The associated data and electrical cabling shall be installed by a qualified tradesperson, with a one-off cost of $2,423 to be borne by the Body Corporate.
2. Electrical cables and conduit required to connect a lot's parking space to its electrical meter, across common property, shall be permitted. The design of the installation must be approved by the Body Corporate to ensure minimal visual impact and compliance with all applicable standards.
3. An appropriate circuit breaker shall be permitted to be installed in the common power board to accommodate the proposed infrastructure.
4. When the main switchboard is upgraded, additional capacity will be included to install circuit breakers to support the dedicated EV charging outlets for each apartment.
5. All costs associated with the installation of the approved power outlet shall be borne by the lot owner.
6. All recurring costs associated with the operation of the EV charging system shall be shared equally by the lot owners with EV power points installed.

3. INSTALLATION OF EV POWER POINTS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS

That by ordinary resolution, it is proposed that unit owners be permitted to install power points for the exclusive purpose of charging Electric Vehicles (EVs) under the following conditions:

1. Owners must submit an application to the Body Corporate for approval before installing any electrical equipment.
2. Only Level 1 (10A plug-in mobile chargers) shall be permitted for charging.
3. All EV charging power outlets installed must be compatible with the system defined by the Body Corporate.
4. The Body Corporate retains the right to activate the load management system, when necessary, based on the number of users or electricity demand. Any associated costs shall be shared equally by lot owners with EV charging power outlets.
5. The installations of the approved power outlet and associated protective equipment must be carried out by a licensed electrician, in accordance with current Australian standards and requirements of the Body Corporate. The power outlet must be connected directly to the individual lot's electricity meter and located within the carpark attached to the relevant unit, with no use of common power sources.
6. Only Electric Vehicles that comply with current Australian road registration standards (i.e., vehicles registered for use on Australian roads) shall be permitted to charge.
7. Vehicles to be charged must be in proper working order and free from damage.
8. Chargers used must comply with current Australian standards and be free from damage or excessive wear. The lot owner shall maintain the power outlet, charger and cables in good working condition, ensuring they are kept neat and in good order.
9. The Body Corporate reserves the right to periodically inspect the power outlet and charging equipment to ensure that they remain free from damage and in proper working order.

• [9] Both Motions 2 and 3 above were defeated with seven votes in favour, and nine against.
• [10] On the same day of the EGM, but prior to voting, the owner of Lot 16, Mr Marshall sent an email to all owners stating among other things the following:

I am uneasy about how quickly the agenda for the [EGM] is being pushed through...

There has been a great deal of work put into the project over many months, but there are still loose ends - I'd say some very important ones: cost sharing issues, management/regulation issues, legal issues and certainly ongoing safety concerns. For instance, if you do not want to take up EV recharging for the time being, then vote 'No' (or 'No for now') because a 'Yes' vote will see you subsidize the installation of those who do. Let's give ourselves time to work on a more equitable arrangement.

• [11] The applicant claims that the outcome of the EGM was materially influenced upon the distribution of this email which contains misleading information, and pushes speculative fears rather than fact. He states that his qualms lie with two aspects of the statement i.e., that:
  1. Non-electric vehicle owners would be required to subsidise costs; and
  2. Significant safety risks exist around the charging of electric vehicles.
• [12] The applicant states that the decision to defeat these motions were not based on the merits of the proposal but on misinformation. He states that the Feasibility Report sent with the notice of EGM confirmed that all costs would be borne by participating owners; and that the chargers of electric vehicles if installed in compliance with Australian standards, presented no elevated fire risk and had no negative impact on insurance premiums.
• [13] The applicant also states that importantly, the body corporate manager confirmed that prior to the circulation of Mr Marshall's email, there were no recorded 'No' votes on these motions.
• [14] The applicant is aggrieved by the decisions on these motions pursuant to which he remains unable to install a charging solution within his own garage (part of his lot), despite having proposed a system that in his words 'met all safety, cost, and regulatory requirements without burdening other owners'.
• [15] The applicant is of the view that the matter cannot be reconsidered at another general meeting without the intervention of this Office.
• [16] Accordingly, as stated above, he seeks an adjudicator's order deeming Motions 2 and 3 as having been carried.

• [17] 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 Community Management Statement ('CMS')[2] or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[3] Further, an order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting in a manner stated.[4] An order may also contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate. [5]
• [18] I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to determine the dispute in question by virtue of sections 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act (read together with section 227(1)(b) of the Act).

• [19] This application was lodged on 28 April 2025.
• [20] On 7 May 2025, the Commissioner provided a copy of the application and invited all owners, affected persons, and the committee on behalf of the respondent body corporate, to make submissions.
• [21] Subsequently, the named affected person, and the owners of Lots 1, 2, 10, 16 and 21 made submissions.
• [22] On 7 May 2025, the Commissioner also informed the applicant of the process to inspect or obtain copies of any submissions made and to reply to the same. This applicant did not avail himself of this process and did not make a reply.
• [23] On 29 May 2025, the Commissioner referred the application for department adjudication.
• [24] I have investigated the dispute under section 271 of the Act by reviewing the application (including the links contained therein) and submissions.

• [25] The question before me for determination is whether the decision to defeat Motions 2 and 3 is unlawful on the basis of unreasonableness. In other words, the question is whether the respondent body corporate contravened section 94(2) of the Act in defeating Motions 2 and 3.
• [26] The applicant contends that the respondent body corporate made its decision on these motions based on misleading information contained in Mr Marshall's email.
• [27] I have not set out in this decision all the aspects of the application and submissions. However, they have been considered.

3.1 Is the decision to defeat Motions 2 and 3 unreasonable?

• [28] I note that the committee has made a rather commendable effort in compiling the Feasibility Report on the charging of electrical vehicles and considerations specific to its scheme. Consequentially, the disappointment of those hoping to benefit from the proposed charging facility is somewhat understandable.
• [29] However, I cannot find that the decision to defeat Motions 2 and 3 is unreasonable on the grounds posited by the applicant. I will explain my reasoning below.

• [30] Firstly, I cannot find the statement made by Mr Marshall in his email regarding 'ongoing safety concerns' to be misleading, incorrect or even hyperbolised in any way. I also note that there was no mention in his email about any 'significant' safety risks as alleged by the applicant.
• [31] Accordingly, the question before me is whether there is any inaccuracy in the mention of such ongoing safety concerns in context and if so, whether the same misled other members of the body corporate to vote against the motions.
• [32] I have the benefit of a submission from Mr Marshall which provides the factors he took into consideration when drafting the said email, and those that informed his vote. This includes the data and information presented in the Feasibility Report, and his own research into the matter.
• [33] The data circulated to lot owners in the Feasibility Report indicates that the fire risk associated with electric vehicles is incredibly low, and that 'it is a common misconception that the presence of electric vehicle charging automatically increases the risk of an electric vehicle battery fire'.[6]
• [34] However, when considering the data in the links shared in this report (as published online immediately prior to the EGM) EV FireSafe records one incident in Australia since 2021 of an electric vehicle having caught fire while charging.[7] [8] Statistics indicate that globally, there have been 80 battery fire incidents involving electric vehicles while connected to energised charging between 2010 to April 2024.[9] [10]
• [35] Elsewhere in the EV FireSafe website (a link to which appears in the Feasibility Report), it is relevantly noted that charging in itself cannot cause a fire provided the electric vehicle is:
  1. A normally operating electric vehicle,
  2. connected to an electrically compliant charger,
  3. installed to relevant wiring standards by a qualified and experienced person.[11]
• [36] Considering the aforesaid data, lot owners would for e.g., have to rely entirely on the bona fides of an electric vehicle user in their scheme, in ensuring that their electric vehicle at any given time is operating normally.
• [37] I reiterate that it is currently accepted that the risk of an electric vehicle fire is extremely low, far lower than the fire risk associated with an internal combustion engine vehicle. While there is no greater risk of harm with electric vehicle vehicles in this regard, it is however currently widely accepted that there continues to be a risk of greater harm with electric vehicle fires. This is, based on evidence regarding the behaviour of electric vehicle fires in contrast to that of fires in internal combustion engine vehicles, with the former having the capacity to have more devastating effects, and being more difficult to extinguish. EV FireSafe in the link appearing in the Feasibility Report notes that thermal runway makes it difficult to extinguish a traction battery fire, and that even once suppressed, there is a risk of fire reignition due to thermal runway.
• [38] I must also note that the relevant 'safety concerns' in this case (involving a proposed charging solution) should not pertain to risks posed by the presence of electric vehicles with batteries at the scheme, but that of any risk posed by the charging of the same at the scheme (or the charger and associated infrastructure itself). One might argue that it is not the act of charging that is of itself hazardous but rather it is a compromised battery that presents the hazard. In fact, this appears to be similar to one of the conclusions cited in the Feasibility Report.[12] However, I reiterate that (based on the data presented to lot owners) for charging to not pose any fire risk, there is an important proviso as set out in paragraph [35] above. More importantly, as Mr Marshall points out in his submission, the Queensland Fire Department considers electric vehicles as well as charging equipment to be 'special hazards' requiring specific consideration under the National Construction Code.
• [39] Furthermore, the research into battery fires even by a reputed organisation such as EV FireSafe is still ongoing.
• [40] In these circumstances, it is not in my view inaccurate for Mr Marshall to have said that there are ongoing safety concerns with the charging of electric vehicles in a community titles scheme such as that in question.
• [41] I will not explore the question of whether this statement made by Mr Marshall misled any other members of the body corporate, given I do not find it to have been inaccurate, false, hyperbolised or indicative of any fearmongering.

• [42] Secondly, I do not find Mr Marshall's statement about cost sharing, and all lot owners having to subsidise the installation of the proposed charging solution, to be inaccurate or misleading.
• [43] This is because even on the face of the motions and Feasibility Report, it is clear that whilst the majority of all costs arising from the proposed charging solution are to be borne by the lot owners benefiting from the same, there are nevertheless costs to be borne by the body corporate. Relevantly, the Feasibility Report states as follows:

Any equipment or system required for the overall management or operation of the EV charging system should be paid by the body corporate.

• Installation of new WiFi routers in both car parks. Quote from Timeout Internet $2423.
• Future installation of load limiting meters in main switchboard - to be determined.

• [44] Based on the submissions made by other members of the body corporate, I note that there is scope within the scheme for further consideration of an electric vehicle charging solution pursuant to further discussion and addressing of concerns held by lot owners. Mr Marshall himself states that the defeat of these motions does not mark the end of the discussion relating to an electric vehicle charging solution. In fact, the submissions indicate that multiple lot owners voted against the motion given they felt there was insufficient time and opportunity to comprehensively discuss the proposal and their concerns.
• [45] This is reflective of a positive attitude on the part of the members towards self-management and self-resolution (internal dispute resolution) as encouraged by the legislation.
• [46] The applicant notes that he has been disadvantaged by what he feels was an unfair voting outcome. He is also of the view that the matter cannot be revoted upon without the intervention of the Commissioner's Office.
• [47] I will note some of my observations in this part of my decision, purely in the hopes that it will either meaningfully assist the parties in any continued efforts at internal dispute resolution, or more optimistically, prevent further dispute altogether.
• [48] I would also encourage parties and any other concerned members of the body corporate to contact the Information and Community Education Unit of the Commissioner's Office for any questions regarding the legislation.[13]

• [49] I wish to clarify that the applicant is free to have the matter reconsidered by submitting a motion(s) for the next general meeting.[14] He does not require intervention by an adjudicator or any other officer of the Commissioner's Office to do so.
• [50] It would however be prudent in the circumstances for the applicant to engage in further discussion with the dissentient lot owners, before tabling any further motions for consideration of the same or different charging solution.

• [51] There is a growing body of adjudicator's orders on the subject of electric vehicle charging solutions at community titles schemes. This includes Adjudicator Jones' decision in Casino Towers[15] and Adjudicator Tsui's decision in Curve Birtinya[16].
• [52] It may be prudent for interested lot owners to peruse the same for an understanding of how the concept of reasonableness under section 94(2) of the Act operates in the sphere of decision-making pertaining to motions for electric vehicle charging.
• [53] The applicant claims that the decision on the two motions was not reflective of a properly informed decision-making process. He states that the charging solution proposed met all safety, cost and regulatory requirements.
• [54] On the other hand, other members of the body corporate are of the view that (among other things) safety considerations have not been adequately addressed.
• [55] If this aspect of the dispute persists, it may be worth turning one's mind to the multi-faceted nature of the fire risk associated with electric vehicles and the charging of the same, i.e., the risk of a fire materialising being extremely low, but the potential for great harm if the said low risk were to materialise.
• [56] In fact, often a body corporate member proposing a charging solution argues that the risk is a low one. Other members may then object on the basis that regardless of the risk being low, if the proposal does not ensure a total elimination of all risks, then a body corporate can reasonably refuse the proposal. Generally, it is prima facie unreasonable to insist on total elimination of all risk - which is impractical and perhaps unattainable. However, in my view, where the risk of a fire albeit low, has potential to cause great harm upon materialisation, it may not be unreasonable for a body corporate to reject a proposal on such basis, unless the proposal contains measures to effectively reduce or eliminate the harm. If there are no such measures proposed, then it may not be unreasonable to deny the proposed charging solution.

• [57] I note that the garages are part and parcel of the lots, as opposed to exclusive use common property spaces. The relevant members of the body corporate may wish to consider the potential application of a statutory easement in this regard.
• [58] An easement has been defined as:

A right of definite and limited character attached to the enjoyment of a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament (dominant tenement[[1]]) by reason whereof the occupier of another corporeal hereditament (servient tenement) is bound to permit the person in whom the right is vested to do something in, on or over the servient tenement other than taking corporeal substance, or whereby the owner or occupier of the servient tenement is bound to abstain from exercising one or more of the ordinary rights of ownership or occupation, or in rare cases, to do something for the benefit of the occupier of the dominant tenement.[[]2]

• [59] An easement it its traditional sense, has four essential characteristics, i.e.:
  1. There must be a dominant tenement and servient tenement;
  2. An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement;
  3. The dominant and servient owners must be different persons;
  4. The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.[[3]]
• [60] A common example of an easement is a right of way, allowing an occupier to access his land-locked lot by walking across his neighbour's lot.
• [61] 'Statutory easements' in relation to community titles schemes in Queensland retain the aforesaid general characteristics, 'except they exist "as of right" so to speak'[[4]], under applicable law which primarily includes the Act, the Land Title Act 1994 and any relevant provisions of the scheme's CMS.
• [62] Such statutory easements can take the form of easements for:
  1. Support (such as wall support)[[5]];
  2. Utility services and infrastructure[[6]] (including service easements i.e., for basic utility services) [[7]];
  3. Shelter by parts of a building[[8]];
  4. Projections over the boundaries of a lot or common property[[9]];
  5. Maintenance of a building close to a boundary of a lot[[10]].[[11]]
• [63] Generally, it is the applicant in a dispute (or the person claiming a statutory easement exists) who bears the onus of establishing the existence of a statutory easement.[[13]]
• [64] I note that the applicant has not claimed the existence of a statutory easement. Further, there is insufficient evidence in the application and other material that allows me to determine whether a statutory easement indeed exists in favour of the portion of the applicant's lot that is the garage, burdening the common property for a utility service (either basic power supply or charging infrastructure). Accordingly, I have not considered the application of the same in the operative part of this decision.
• [65] However, this may be a concept worth exploring if the body corporate is called to reconsider a charging solution in the manner expressed in the submissions.

• [66] I am unable to find that the statements made by Mr Marshall regarding ongoing safety concerns, cost-sharing and subsidisation are inaccurate or misleading.
• [67] Accordingly, the order sought is not warranted and this application is dismissed.

[1] Source: www.evfiresafe.com (As per a link attached to Pg 29 of the Application and Pg 8 of the Feasibility Report)

[2] The CMS includes the scheme's by-laws

[3] Sections 276)(1)(a) and (b) of the Act

[5] See Brighton on Broadwater Breezes [2018] QBCCMCmr 243 at [8]

[6] Pg 8 of the Feasibility Report (Pg 55 of the Application) citing EV FireSafe (https://www.evfiresafe.com/research-ev-fire-charging)

[7] '02.1 EV Battery Fire Data' (EV FireSafe, 1 November 2024) accessed 28 October 2025 (As linked in Pg 29 of the Application) The metadata of this webpage and document indicates it was the version published and available immediately prior to the EGM.

[8] I note that this does not necessarily suggest that it was the act of charging that caused or precipitated the fire. The recording of this statistic is rather indicative of thorough and ongoing empirical research by the relevant organisation

[9] '02.1 EV Battery Fire Data' (EV FireSafe, 30 June 2024) accessed 28 October 2025 (As linked in Pg 29 of the Application) The metadata of this webpage and document indicates it was the version published and available immediately prior to the EGM

[10] I reiterate that this does not necessarily suggest that it was the act of charging that caused or precipitated the fire. The recording of this statistic is rather indicative of thorough and ongoing empirical research by the relevant organisation

[11] '02.1 EV Battery Fire Data' (EV FireSafe, 1 November 2024) accessed 28 October 2025 (As linked in Pg 29 of the Application) The metadata of this webpage and document indicates it was the version published and available immediately prior to the EGM

[12] 'Currently, we believe the majority of charging-connected EV battery fires occur due to the EV having been previously damaged, then connected to charging.' See Pg 8 of the Feasibility Report (Pg 55 of the Application) citing EV FireSafe (https://www.evfiresafe.com/research-ev-fire-charging)

[13] Freecall: 1800 060 119 or visit https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/legislation-and-bccm/services/enquire

[14] See section 76 of the Accommodation Module on submitting motions. Also see section 74 of the Accommodation Module on requesting an extraordinary general meeting.

[15] [2025] QBCCMCmr 181 available at https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/181.html?

[16] [2025] QBCCMCmr 113 available at https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/133.html?

[[1]] A tenement is a 'lot' or a parcel of land

[[]2] Francis EA, The Law and Practice Relating to Torrens Title in Australasia (Sydney, Butterworths 1972), p 503; Winfield, Jenks' English Civil Law (4th ed, London, Butterworths, 1947) [1167]. See also similar definition cited by the High Court of Australia in Concord Municipal Council v Coles (1905) 3 CLR 96 at 110

[[3]] As laid down in Re Ellenborough Park [1956_]_ Ch 131 at [163]

[[4]] Lanikai on Brighton [2020] QBCCMCmr 550 at [143]

[[5]] Section 115N of the Land Title Act 1994

[[6]] Section 1150O and 115P of the Land Title Act 1994

[[7]] Schedule 6 of the Act (definitions of 'basic utility service' and 'service easements'

[[8]] Section 115Q of the Land Title Act 1994

[[9]] Section 115R of the Land Title Act 1994

[[10]] Section 115S of the Land Title Act 1994

[[11]] See also statutory easement under section 352(2) of the Act

[[13]] Ralborg No 2 Pty Ltd atf Ralston Property Trust v The Body Corporate for The Regent Apartments CTS 9573 [2020] QCATA 117