Kooba Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 253 (22 July 2025)

MAINTENANCE - whether the body corporate or an owner have failed to comply with maintenance obligations - INSURANCE - whether a lot owner has failed to contribute to the insurance - GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS - whether the body corporate unreasonably failed to pass motions - ADMINISTRATOR - where there is conflict between the owners - whether an administrator should be appointed.

Act, ss 92, 106, 151, 152, 160, 278, 286-288, 301, 312

Standard Module, ss 160, 162, 180, 196-198, 201, 211, 212

1. The owners of Lots 1 and 2 are each responsible for half of the premium for the insurance policies required to be held by the Body Corporate for Kooba Court.
2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the owner of Lot 1, Neisha Cook, must pay the owner of Lot 2, Paul Roberts, the amount of $1,990.10, being half of the premium paid for insurance policy ISRSC/00022263 obtained on behalf of the Body Corporate for Kooba Court for the period 12 October 2024 to 12 October 2025.
3. Motions 3, 4 and 7, included on the agenda for the annual general meeting of the Body Corporate for Kooba Court on 23 January 2025 are deemed to have passed.
4. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This scheme is a duplex. There has been conflict between the two owners since the applicant acquired Lot 2 in July 2023. Some of the matters in dispute were canvassed in a recent order.[1] The applicant now seeks orders on 5 further matters.
• [2] The applicant asserts that the owner of Lot 1 and the body corporate have failed to meet their statutory maintenance obligations. He seeks orders to allow certain work to proceed.
• [3] Next, the applicant wants a body corporate insurance policy to be maintained, and to be reimbursed for insurance premiums already paid.
• [4] Third, the applicant asserts it was unreasonable for the body corporate not to pass certain motions considered at the annual general meeting (AGM) on 23 January 2025. He seeks orders to deem 5 AGM motions to have passed.
• [5] Given the ongoing conflict at the scheme, the applicant also wants an administrator appointed. He nominates a proposed administrator.
• [6] Finally, the applicant wants the body corporate to commence proceedings against the owner of Lot 1 to enforce the previous orders and impose penalties.
• [7] I will consider the relevant obligations of the parties and whether orders are warranted.

• [8] Kooba Court community titles scheme 12558 (Kooba Court) is a 2-lot scheme at Miami. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 2580.
• [9] This application seeking the following orders:
  1. That the Owner of Lot 1 & The Body Corporate for Kooba Court, comply with the following requirements of the Body Corporate & Community Management Act 1997:

Section 152 Body Corporate's Duties about Common Property, etc.

Section 160 Obligations of owners and occupiers to maintain

Section 161 Body Corporate's authority to carry out work of owners & occupiers

That the Owner of Lot 1 & The Body Corporate for Kooba Court, Comply with the following requirements of the Body Corporate & Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020: Section 180 Duties of Body Corporate about common property

To allow, approve, facilitate, not hinder and contribute in accordance with the Lot entitlements, the following:

1. Replacement of Common Property Balustrade & Stair handrail to meet current building codes (Quotations attached to AGM Notice - Attachment B1)
2. Repair spalling to Common Property Balcony slab. (Quotations Attached to AGM Notice - Attachment B1)
3. Replacement of Common Property Stairs to meet current building codes.(Quotations currently being sought by the applicant)
4. Repair to the Common Property Roof due to leaking. (Quotations Attached - Attachments B2 & B3)

1. That the Owner of Lot 1 & The Body Corporate for Kooba Court, Comply with the following requirements of the Body Corporate & Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020: Section 197 Insurance of Common Property & body corporate assets

To allow, approve, facilitate, contribute to in accordance with the Interest Schedule & not hinder or attempt to cancel the following:

The Body Corporate Common Property Insurance Policy No. ISRSC/0002263

Further that the Applicant be re-imbursed for premiums already paid, to an amount in proportion with the Interest Schedule Lot Entitlements for Kooba Court CTS 12558.

1. That the decisions NOT to pass the following Motions at the Annual General Meeting held on 23rd January 2025, be deemed to be unreasonable, and that the motions be deemed to be carried:

Motion 3 Administrative Fund Budget and Interim Contribution/s - Ordinary Resolution

Motion 4 Sinking Fund Budget and Interim Contribution/s - Ordinary Resolution

Motion 15.1 Balcony Spalling (alternative Quote) - Ordinary Resolution

Motion 16.1 Rear Landing & Stairway Handrail (alternative Quote) - Ordinary Resolution

1. That pursuant to Section 278 of the Body Corporate & Community Management Act 1997, an Independent Administrator be appointed to facilitate the ongoing conduct of the Body Corporate with respect to all of the above matters & all other relevant provisions of the Body Corporate & Community Management Act 1997 and the Body Corporate & Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020, and that authority of the Body Corporate be vested in the Administrator to make all decisions of the Body Corporate, until all Lot owners unanimously resolve to terminate the appointment.
2. That Mr Michael Kleinschmidt of Budgen Allen Group Legal, be appointed as the Administrator. Bugden Allen is an Australian law firm that specialises in property development, and structured titles such as strata and community titles. Both Mr Kleinschmidt & Budgen Allen Group Legal are independent of the Applicant. Mr Kleinschmidt has indicated that he is willing to accept the appointment in the letter attached. (Attachment L)
3. That the Body Corporate commence proceedings against the owner of Lot 1 for contravention of Adjudicator's Orders, including enforcement of Orders and penalties for contraventions.

• [10] 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.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[3]

• [11] The applicant originally applied for conciliation in November 2024 about a range of issues.[4] The parties reached an agreement to progress some matters, but they remain in dispute.
• [12] The previous adjudication application was lodged in December 2024.[5] An order about that application was made on 7 May 2025.
• [13] This application was lodged on 15 May. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some matters,[6] and the application was amended.[7]
• [14] The Commissioner invited submissions from the first respondent.[8] No submission was received. Several attempts were made to contact the owner including sending notice of the application to two different email addresses and the address of the lot, and attempting to call the owner. The owner of Lot 1 did not respond.
• [15] The application was referred to department adjudication.[9]
• [16] I have now investigated the dispute.[10] After reviewing the application a member of the Commissioner's office contacted the applicant at my request to clarify insurance payment made and whether anything new had happened in regard to the issues in the application. A further, unsuccessful, attempt was also made to contact the owner of Lot 1 about the dispute.

• [17] I will consider each of the orders sought in turn.

• [18] The applicant asserts that the body corporate and the owner of Lot 1 are not complying with statutory obligations regarding maintenance. He seeks orders requiring the body corporate and owner of Lot 1 to comply with its legislative obligations and to facilitate work on four issues.
• [19] The applicant says the owner of Lot 1 has said on numerous occasions that she has no intention of spending money on building maintenance. He provides email communications that support this assertion. For example, in an email on 11 March 2025 about a leak the owner of Lot 1 said, "...as I'd like to demolish soon I won't be fixing it." An email on 3 April 2025 included the statement "...as already stated, I have no intention to further fund repairs on this bomb...". On 3 May 2025 she said, about a failed hot water system, "...I am reluctant to replace it as it's obvious to me that the building requires demolition."

• [20] The applicant cites various legislative provisions on this issue, which I will address.
• [21] The Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control the common property for the benefit of owners and comply with the regulations about common property.[11] The body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[12] Owners in turn must maintain their lots in good condition.[13]
• [22] The statutory duty to maintain is one of strict liability. Maintenance must be undertaken as soon as the building or part of it falls into disrepair or is not operating properly.[14] A body corporate cannot avoid or defer required work because it has not budgeted for the work, has insufficient funds, or it has other priorities.
• [23] In that respect, the opinions of individual owners on the utility of undertaking maintenance are misconceived. As I explained in the reasons for the previous decision, unless there is agreement by the owners to redevelop the scheme, or to terminate it in accordance with the statutory processes, all work necessary to maintain lots and the common property in good and structurally sound condition must be undertaken. It seems the applicant does not agree to terminate the scheme or demolish the building.
• [24] The legislation provides that if an owner fails to carry out work they have an obligation for under the legislation, CMS or a relevant order, the body corporate could decide to undertake the work itself and recover the reasonable cost from the owner.[15] It could do so, for example, an owner failed to maintain their lot in good condition. But that power is not relevant to the failure of an owner to support or facilitate maintenance of the common property. In that case it is the body corporate and not the individual owner who has the maintenance obligation.
• [25] The applicant argues the owner of Lot 1 is breaching the conduct of conduct by not acting in a reasonable manner for the benefit of the body corporate and refusing to abide by the legislative provisions about maintenance. The legislation sets out a code of conduct for voting members of the committee.[16] The code imposes obligations on committee members but not owners. This application was not brought against the owner of Lot 1 in her capacity as a committee member. It is not clear if the applicant is asserting that the owner of Lot 1 is breaching their obligations as a committee member, and if so how. And while any failure of the owner of Lot 1 to support or facilitate body corporate maintenance might be viewed as unreasonable, the legislation does not impose an obligation on owners to act reasonably. Rather, it is the body corporate (being the entity that comprises all owners) that must act reasonably.
• [26] It is self-evident that the body corporate must maintain the common property in good condition. The owner of Lot 1 must also maintain Lot 1 in good condition, although the applicant does not appear to raise any issue that Lot 1 is in need of maintenance. However, I see no utility in an order making a bare declaration that a respondent must comply with the legislation. They must do so whether or not there is an order. But I will consider the specific works on which the applicant seeks orders and whether orders are warranted about those works.

• [27] The applicant wants the balustrade and stair handrail on common property replaced.
• [28] The statement of the grounds to the application do not explain the issue with the balustrade and handrail. However, Motion 16 at the AGM was submitted by the applicant on the matter. The explanatory note to the motion said the rear landing balustrade and stair handrails did not meet current building codes and require replacement. The motion considered 2 quotes for this work. The applicant supported the second quote, but the owner of Lot 1 voted against both.
• [29] Both quotes provide for the replacement of the balustrade. Neither comment on the condition or compliance of the balustrades. In the copy of the conciliation application included in this application, the applicant says the balustrades do not meet current height requirements.
• [30] I note the owner of Lot 1 submitted Motion 10 to the AGM to engage a structural engineer to assess certain aspects of the building and to appoint a private certifier to identify non-compliance on certain things, including a balustrade. That motion was ruled out of order.
• [31] The stairs on each side of the scheme are clearly on common property.[17] If maintenance is required to ensure the stair railings are in good condition, that would be a body corporate responsibility. The balustrade in question appears to be on the balcony that is part of Lot 2. However, it appears the balustrade may form the boundary between the lot and common property. In that case the outer face of the balustrade (although not the entire balustrade) would be common property. But the legislation provides that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining in good condition balustrades that are on (whether precisely or for all practical purposes), the boundary of a lot and common property.[18]
• [32] If the balustrade and railing are not compliant with applicable regulations and were required to be modified or replaced to meet those regulations, it is certainly arguable that they are not fit for purpose. In that case, the work would be required to maintain them in good condition.
• [33] The difficulty here is that the applicant provides no evidence that the balustrade and railing are not compliant with any relevant regulation or otherwise are not in good condition. It is beyond the role of an adjudicator to determine compliance with building codes or other such regulatory requirements. The applicant has not provided evidence from a relevant agency or appropriately qualified professional determining that the balustrade and railing are not compliant. And, if they are not compliant, the applicant has not established that they must be completely replaced (rather than, for example, modified in some way) to be made compliant.
• [34] The applicant bears the onus of proof. He has not substantiated that the body corporate must replace the balustrade and railing to meet its statutory maintenance obligations.

• [35] The applicant wants repairs to the balcony slab.
• [36] The grounds to the application do not explain the issue with the balcony slab, but AGM Motion 15 related to this issue. It was submitted by the applicant and proposed balcony spalling repairs. An explanatory note said spalling had occurred to the front balcony over many years and as the area was common property, it was the responsibility of the body corporate to undertake the work. The supplied conciliation application mentioned, in its grounds, that an issue with rusted guttering had caused or contributed to the spalling in the balcony. It said it was difficult and expensive to obtain insurance, in part because spalling had not been repaired.
• [37] Two quotes were submitted to the AGM. Both refer to concrete spalling repairs to the balcony, but neither describe the condition of the balcony slab. Both refer to the balcony edge. One quote refers to 17 meters of the balcony edge and to concrete cancer at the edge of the slab.
• [38] AGM Motion 10, submitted by the owner of Lot 1, which sought to engage a structural engineer and appoint a private certifier, referred to assessing spalling in the slab ceiling of Lot 1.
• [39] Having reviewed the survey plan, it is evident that the balcony on the upper level of the building is part of Lot 2 rather than being common property, except for the outer edge of the balcony beyond the vertical boundary between Lot 2 and the surrounding common property. The centre of the slab is the boundary between the two lots, except to the extent that the slab near the top of the stairs extends beyond the footprint of Lot 1 below (in which case, the centre of the slab is the boundary between Lot 2 and the common property below). Prima facie, the applicant is responsible for the upper half of the slab and the owner of Lot 1 (or the body corporate as the case may be) is responsible for the lower half of the slab. They must maintain the slab in good condition. However, the slab is a foundation structure for Lot 2 and a roofing structure providing protection for Lot 1 and the common property below it. As such, the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the slab in a structurally sound condition.[19]
• [40] The applicant does not provide reports from appropriately qualified persons as to the condition of the balcony slab, the exact location of any concrete spalling, the extent or impact of the spalling, or the work required to rectify the situation. The applicant does not provide photographs or other evidence as to the current condition of the balcony slab.
• [41] It may be there is concrete spalling on the Lot 2 balcony that requires repair. However, the applicant has provided insufficient evidence that the spalling is solely in those parts of the slab that are common property rather than being part of Lot 2, or that the damage renders the slab structurally unsound. If there is spalling that is on Lot 2 and is not structural, the body corporate may be responsible for the work if it arose because of a failure to maintain guttering in good condition,[20] but I have no evidence in that regard.
• [42] Again, the applicant bears the onus of proof. While any concrete spalling should be repaired to ensure the slab is in good and structurally sound condition, the applicant has provided insufficient information to establish that any or all of the work is a body corporate responsibility.

• [43] The applicant wants to replace the common property stairs to meet current building codes.
• [44] The applicant says the owner of Lot 1 complained that the top step of the rear stairway does not meet the building code requirements. He said the owner accused him of altering the stair height, but \a photograph provided by the owner of Lot 1 shows the pre-existing stringer was above the maximum height for a stair rise. The applicant says he suggested the owner of Lot 1 obtain quotes but, as she has not done so, he is attempting to do so.
• [45] The applicant provides an email from the owner of Lot 1 on 30 April 2025 asserting non-compliance with the stairs. The applicant responded on 2 May noting the stairs were common property and apparently providing 3 quotes and a draft motion for the stairway replacement. Those quotes and motion were not included in the application. The owner of Lot 1 responded on 3 May that she was not requesting the replacement of the stairs and claiming they were replaced 10 years ago. The applicant provides a photograph of a single step, apparently provided by the owner of Lot 1, but I am unclear if it is current.
• [46] The stairs at the front and the rear of the building are common property. If they are not in good condition, including if they do not comply with regulatory requirements, they should be rectified.
• [47] However, the applicant has not provided cogent evidence, such as a professional report or regulatory assessment, that the current stairs are not compliant with the building code or any other requirement, or otherwise are not in good condition.
• [48] Accordingly, I am not satisfied I have sufficient information to make an order about the stairs. The applicant has not established that the body corporate must replace the stairs to meet its statutory maintenance obligations. Moreover, the applicant has not provided quotes for any work he wants undertake and has not evidenced that the proposal to replace the starts or any quotes have been put to the owner of Lot 1 or considered at a general meeting.

• [49] The applicant wants the roof repaired due to it leaking.
• [50] The application does not explain the issue with the roof. It does not include any evidence of any communication with the owner of Lot 1 about the roof. The applicant does not provide any reports, photographs or other evidence of the current condition of the roof or any leaking.
• [51] The applicant provides 2 quotes for this work, albeit without any explanation. The first quote is for re-clipping of the upper roof. The quote does not describe the condition of the roof but says reclipping does not include a leak free warranty but generally fixes all leaks. The second quote similarly does not comment on the condition of the roof. It covers work to clean the roof, remove broken tiles, relocate chipped tiles, apply a primer and roof membrane, and re-point the ridgeline. The applicant does not indicate which quote (if either) he is seeking.
• [52] The roof of the building is clearly common property. If it is leaking or otherwise not in good condition, it must be repaired. If an inadequately maintained roof resulted damage to lots, for example from water ingress, the body corporate may be liable for repairs to those lots.[21]
• [53] However, at this stage I have insufficient information to make an order about the roof repairs. The applicant has not provided evidence of the condition of the roof such that I can make a determination that the body corporate is currently not maintaining the roof in good condition. Furthermore, the applicant has not evidenced that he has submitted motions to a general meeting or otherwise to the owner of Lot 1 proposing that roofing repairs be undertaken.

• [54] Next, the applicant seeks compliance with the regulations regarding insurance. He wants the respondents to allow, approve, facilitate, and contribute to insurance policy ISRSC/0002263. Moreover, he seeks reimbursement of the insurance premiums he has already paid.
• [55] The applicant says that in September 2024, while he was overseas, the owner of Lot 1 contacted the body corporate's insurer, Suncorp Insurance, and cancelled the body corporate's insurance policy. He says subsequently engaged a broker to obtain insurance. The application included evidence of a strata insurance policy obtained in the name of the body corporate for the period 12 October 2024 to 12 October 2025 in the amount of $3,565.
• [56] The applicant wrote to the owner of Lot 1 in October 2024 advising that he had obtained 2 quotes for body corporate insurance. He asked if she had obtained any quotes and, if not, sought agreement to the lower of the two quotes he obtained. The owner of Lot 1 asked queries about the insurance coverage, which the applicant responded to. The owner of Lot 1 challenged the responses. The applicant says the owner of Lot 1 refused the insurance. He claims she said insurance is a waste of money as she wishes to demolish the building. He says he has been left to pay all the insurance by monthly instalments.
• [57] The owner of Lot 1 voted against the statutory motion (Motion 7) at the AGM in January 2025 which sought to ratify the insurance details circulated with the meeting notice.
• [58] The owner of Lot 1 submitted a motion about insurance to the AGM (Motion 11). It proposed that, following Suncorp's termination of the strata insurance, a new policy be sought that "...accepts current conditions and that both units treat the property in a way that adheres to policy requirements/disclosures & does not void it. Mitigating factors: *deterioration of building * occupants working from home * unapproved, non compliant works U2 to source replacement strata policy accepting of above factors, has full disclosure & is paid jointly on a monthly basis as future of building is tenuous."
• [59] Motion 11 was ruled out of order including because it was not clear, was unenforceable, does not have quotations attached, and contains false and misleading statements. On its face, I agree it was appropriate to rule Motion 11 out of order as its meaning is so unclear as to render it unenforceable. Moreover, if the owner of Lot 1 was dissatisfied with the insurance quotes obtained by the owner of Lot 2, it is unclear why she did not obtain alternative quotes.

• [60] A body corporate must obtain and maintain certain insurances. It is a fundamental minimum that a body corporate must have in place to protect the interests of all owners, occupiers, visitors, and the body corporate. That is the case regardless of any owner's interest in or future plans for the scheme.
• [61] The body corporate must insure the common property and body corporate assets for full replacement value,[22] and must maintain public risk insurance of the common property and relevant assets.[23] In a scheme that is created under a building format plan of subdivision (which Kooba Court is), the body corporate must insure for its full replacement value each building in the scheme in which a lot is located.[24]
• [62] The owner of each lot covered by reinstatement insurance must contribute to the insurance premiums payable by the body corporate based on their interest schedule lot entitlements.[25] At Kooba Court, both the contribution and interest schedule lot entitlements are equal. That means each owner must contribute half of the body corporate's insurance premiums.

• [63] In the absence of a submission from the owner of Lot 1, I have no reason to believe the insurance policy obtained by the applicant does not meet the body corporate's needs and obligations. It was apparently obtained via an insurance broker. It clearly insures the body corporate. I have no evidence that any alternative insurance policy is in place or was proposed by the owner of Lot 1. I also have no evidence that the owner of Lot 1 has contributed to the cost of the insurance policy that the applicant has obtained.
• [64] I sought clarification from the applicant of the insurance payments made. He advised that, while the annual premium was $3,565, because the premium is being paid monthly and under a finance arrangement, the total annual cost was $3,980.20. He provides evidence of nine payments totalling $3,980.20.
• [65] I am satisfied that the owner of Lot 1 is liable for 50% of the cost of the insurance policy obtained by the applicant for the body corporate. I am satisfied on the evidence that the applicant paid the entire premium totalling $3,980.20. I consider it appropriate to require the owner of Lot 1 reimburse the applicant for 50% of the total annual premium.
• [66] If the owner of Lot 1 wants the body corporate to take out an alternative insurance policy after the expiry of the current policy, she could propose that. However, she must understand that for as long as the body corporate exists, it must hold compliant insurance policies and each owner must contribute equally to the premiums for such policies.

• [67] The next order relates to 5 motions that failed to pass at the AGM in January 2025.
• [68] During a conciliation in November 2024, the parties agreed to hold an AGM.[26] The applicant prepared the AGM agenda and notice, which included statutory motions and motions submitted by both owners. The owner of Lot 1 submitted a voting paper and attended part of the AGM in person. The owner of Lot 1 voted against all statutory motions and the applicant's motions, and only voted in favour of the motions she submitted (which were ruled out of order).
• [69] The applicant objects to the failure of the body corporate to pass Motions 3, 4, 7, 15 and 16. He says it was unreasonable to do so.
• [70] The legislation requires a body corporate to act reasonably in undertaking its functions including in making or not making a decision.[27] Where that does not occur, an adjudicator may intervene to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute, including declaring a resolution purportedly passed to be void or to give effect to a motion that was not passed_._
• [71] The test for whether a decision is reasonable is objective.[28] It is a question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances.[29] Reasonable decision-making "...involves an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue..." and "...requires that all relevant matters are taken into consideration and irrelevant ones are left out".[30] The person challenging a decision bears the onus of proof that the body corporate failed to act reasonably.
• [72] I will consider the 5 motions having regard to that test.

• [73] Motion 3 proposed an administrative fund budget of $3,960 with instalments due on 1 March and 1 April 2025 and an interim levy due on 1 July 2025. The budget was less than 10% more than administrative fund adopted (by both owners) at the previous AGM in August 2023.
• [74] Motion 4 proposed adopting an administrative fund budget of $440 with instalments due on 1 February and 1 April 2025 and an interim levy due on 1 July 2025. I note that the proposed sinking fund budget put to the 2023 AGM was zero, but that motion failed to pass.
• [75] The owner of Lot 1 voted against both motions. A handwritten comment on the voting paper for Motion 3 said 'Attempts to open a CBA joint strata account with 'P & A' have been dismissed.'[31] A note on Motion 4 said 'We have no account'.
• [76] A body corporate is required to adopt (by ordinary resolution) an administrative and sinking fund budget for each financial year.[32] The administrative fund covers maintenance, insurance, and other recurrent spending. The sinking fund covers major capital or non-recurrent expenditure both for the current financial year and to accumulate funds to meet anticipated future expenditure. Proposed budgets must be included with each AGM notice. Contributions must then be set at a general meeting and levied on all owners.[33]
• [77] The legislation provides for a financial institutions account to be set up with the consent of, and in the name of, the body corporate.[34] If the body corporate does not currently have a bank account, the owners should promptly establish one. But the absence of an account is not a rational basis not to meet the body corporate obligation to adopt budgets and raise levies.
• [78] Without a submission, there is no indication that the owner of Lot 1 objects to the substance of the budgets or the levies. There is no indication that the owner proposed alternative budgets.
• [79] There could be a question about whether the budgets are sufficient for the body corporate's requirements. But in the absence of an alternative, raising some funds is preferable to none. Moreover, it appears the body corporate's financial year end date is 30 June 2025, such that the next AGM is due by the end of September.[35] Accordingly, further amounts can be raised at the next AGM, or via a special levy at an intervening general meeting,[36] if required.
• [80] In the absence of a submission, I am satisfied it was unreasonable for the body corporate not to adopt budgets and set levies at the AGM. Given the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to deem Motions 3 and 4 to have passed.
• [81] The owner of Lot 1 should be aware that if she does not contribute to levies adopted by virtue of Motions 3 and 4 (once a contribution notice is issues), she will owe a body corporate debt. In that case she would not be entitled to vote on most motions at a general meeting. In that circumstance, motions could pass with the sole vote of the applicant.

• [82] Motion 7 proposed that the body corporate ratify the insurance details listed in the circulated insurance report. It appears the notice included details of the policy obtained by the applicant. The owner of Lot 1 voted against Motion 7. As outlined, the owner of Lot 1 submitted a different motion about insurance, but that motion was unclear and was ruled out of order.
• [83] As outlined above, the body corporate is required to have insurance. Also, the regulations require the disclosure of each policy of insurance held by the body corporate at each AGM.[37]
• [84] While it appears the owner of Lot 1 had concerns about the insurance policy obtained by the applicant, it does not appear that she actually identified an alternative insurance policy or obtained quotes for an alternative that would address her concerns. The owner of Lot 1 was not necessarily required to agree to the insurance policy identified by the applicant. However, by the date of the AGM the owner of Lot 1 had several months to identify an alternative insurance policy that addressed her concerns. There is no indication that she has done so to date. Moreover, the nature of the concerns with the insurance obtained are quite unclear.
• [85] I consider it is not reasonable for the body corporate not to hold an insurance policy when viable insurance is available. In the absence of any evidence that the insurance policy obtained by the applicant is inadequate or inappropriate, or any viable alternative being identified or proposed, I do not consider it was reasonable for the body corporate not to ratify that insurance. I am satisfied it is appropriate to deem Motion 7 to have passed.

• [86] Motion 15 proposed balcony spalling repairs. It included 2 quotes. The applicant voted in favour of the second option. The owner of Lot 1 voted against both.
• [87] As I discussed regarding the first order, the applicant has not yet provided sufficient evidence that the balcony slab is not in good or structurally sound condition or that the body corporate must repair it. It may be that is the case, but the applicant has not discharged his onus of proof in that regard. In those circumstances I have insufficient basis to determine that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to decide not to pass either of the options in Motion 15.

• [88] Motion 16 sought to replace the rear landing balustrade and stairway handrail. Again, the applicant voted in favour of the second option, but the owner of Lot 1 voted against both.
• [89] At this stage, the applicant has likewise not provided evidence that the balustrade and railing are not compliant with any relevant regulation or otherwise are not in good condition, or must be entirely replaced. As such, the applicant has not substantiated that the body corporate must replace the balustrade and railing to meet its statutory obligations. Accordingly, I have no basis on which to determine that the body corporate unreasonably failed to pass Motion 16.

• [90] The applicant seeks the appointment of an administrator to facilitate the ongoing operation of the body corporate. He wants that administrator to have the power to make all body corporate decisions, unless both owners agree to terminate the appointment. The applicant nominated a proposed administrator.
• [91] The legislation empowers an adjudicator to appoint an administrator and authorise the administrator to perform obligations of the body corporate, its committee, or a member of its committee under this Act or the CMS.[38] An administrator appointed by an adjudicator has the powers given to the administrator under the order.[39]
• [92] Adjudicators rarely appoint administrators on a long-term or ongoing basis. Self-management is an inherent aspect of community titles schemes.[40] Administrator appointments deprive owners of the right to administer the body corporate themselves and can have a significant cost. An applicant must usually demonstrate that the administration of the body corporate has broken down irretrievably or is in significant disarray for an appointment to be considered.
• [93] In overturning the decision of an adjudicator to appoint an administrator in a two-lot scheme where there was considerable long-term disagreement between the two owners, the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal noted that:[41]

Appointment of an administrator is within the power of an adjudicator (section 276(3) and Schedule 5 of the BCCM Act), no criteria are prescribed for doing so, but it is a significant step since it takes responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the body corporate out of the hands of the committee and vests it in the administrator. An applicant must therefore demonstrate to the required standard that such a step is appropriate. Typically, without attempting to be exhaustive, there will be evidence that the body corporate is so dysfunctional that it cannot operate properly within the statutory framework that governs it, or that there is a well founded suspicion, on the part of an applicant for appointment of an administrator of financial malpractice within the body corporate, or that there is conduct that amounts to undue oppression in the conduct of its affairs. Without more, mere disagreements between the members, especially when the disputes are due to reasonably held differences of view and there are means available to resolve them by reference to external processes.

• [94] There is clearly conflict between the owners at Kooba Court and fundamentally different views on the future of the scheme. There are concerns about the conduct of the owner of Lot 1. The body corporate may not be meeting some of its obligations. But I am not yet convinced the circumstances have yet risen to the level of disfunction that would warrant completely removing the power of either owner to make any decisions about the body corporate. That said, if the owner of Lot 1 disregards this order and impedes the proper functioning of the body corporate, the appointment of an administrator may be required in future.

• [95] Finally, the applicant seeks an order that the body corporate commence proceedings against the owner of Lot 1 for contravening adjudicator's orders.
• [96] The previous order, made on 7 May 2025, required the owner of Lot 1 to do certain things within 7 days of the date of the order (order 1). Other action was required within 3 months (order 2). The applicant says that, as of 25 May, order 1 had not been complied with and there was no evidence of any attempt to rectify the matters. He further said the respondent had undertaken action (painting the common property lawn) in direct defiance of order 3 The application included photographs. The applicant subsequently provided further photographs taken on 16 July evidencing that the matters in the order had not been rectified and that there had been further damage to the lawn.
• [97] The Act provides for the enforcement of adjudicators' orders.[42] For an order other than to pay an amount, a copy of the order and a sworn statement by a person in whose favour the order is made stating that an obligation in the order has not been performed can be registered with the Magistrates Court.[43] The order is then enforceable as an order of the court. The court can appoint an administrator to perform obligations under the order. The Commissioner's office has no role in enforcement process.
• [98] The legislation also says a person who contravenes the order of an adjudicator commits an offence.[44] The persons who can commence a proceeding about the offence include the original applicant, a person in whose favour the order is made, and the body corporate.
• [99] The body corporate could commence a proceeding to enforce the previous order or seek a penalty for the contravention of the order. But it would normally need to resolve to do so.[45] The applicant has not evidenced that he has proposed a motion for the body corporate to commence proceedings. And although the owner of Lot 1 is unlikely to vote in favour of such a motion, the applicant has not established why the body corporate should be directed to commence such proceeding without any such attempt being made.
• [100] The previous orders were made in response to an application made by the applicant. The orders made were substantively in the applicant's favour. The applicant could personally commence proceedings to enforce the order and seek the imposition of a penalty. He has not explained why he could not or should not do so.
• [101] It is clearly inappropriate that the owner of Lot 1 is breaching the previous orders made. However, in the circumstances, the applicant has not satisfied me the 6th order is warranted.

• [102] It may be the body corporate is failing to maintain the common property and other elements of scheme land that it is responsible for in good and structurally sound condition. I caution the owner of Lot 1 that her interest in demolishing the building in future is not a justification to oppose necessary maintenance when that is not agreed to by the applicant. However, for the reasons outlined, at this stage the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to warrant an order to relating to specific maintenance works.
• [103] I am satisfied that orders are warranted regarding insurance, including requiring the owner of Lot 1 to pay the applicant for 50% of the premium for the current body corporate policy.
• [104] I am also satisfied that the body corporate unreasonably failed to pass Motions 3, 4 and 7 at the AGM on 23 January 2025. However, the applicant has not substantiated that AGM Motions 15 and 16 should be deemed passed.
• [105] And for the reasons outlined, I have dismissed the balance of the application.
• [106] I caution the owner of Lot 1 that, regardless of any future plans she may have for her lot, or preferences she has for the future of the scheme, she is not entitled to impede the body corporate in administering its affairs in accordance with the legislation. If she does so, the appointment of an administrator, with the attendant cost to both owners, may be required in future. The owner of Lot 1 should also be aware that intentionally damaging common property may, as well as breaching the previous order, be a nuisance or an unreasonably interference in breach of section 167 of the Act, as could conduct intended to annoy the occupiers of Lot 2

[1] Kooba Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 146

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

[12] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[13] Section 160 of the Act and section 211(3) of the Standard Module

[14] Noting Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 67 and Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 82

[15] Section 212 of the Standard Module

[17] Noting Kooba Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 146 paras 19-20

[18] Section 180(2)(a)(i) of the Standard Module

[19] Section 180(2)(b) of the Standard Module

[22] Section 197 of the Standard Module

[23] Section 206 of the Standard Module

[24] Section 198 of the Standard Module

[25] Section 201(1)(a) of the Standard Module

[26] Conciliation application 1079-2024

[28] Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99

[29] Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49

[30] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 43, citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423

[31] I assume 'P & A' refers to the applicant and partner.

[32] Section 160 of the Standard Module

[33] Section 162 of the Standard Module

[35] Noting section 83 of the Standard Module

[36] Noting section 162(2) of the Standard Module

[37] Section 196 of the Standard Module

[38] Noting Item 23 of schedule 5 to the Act

[41] Surace v Commisso [2009] QCCTBCCM 42, paragraph 44

[45] Noting section 312(3) and (4)(d) of the Act