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

INTERIM ORDER - whether interim orders are warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about water ingress and damage to the applicant's Lot 4.
• [2] Soon after the applicants moved into Lot 4, in late 2024 they reported a water leak. Some rectification work occurred, and repairs were planned. Further water ingress occurred during a cyclone event in March 2025. The body corporate lodged an insurance claim for damage to Lot 4 and other lots. At length, the insurer determined it would not cover the damage to Lot 4.
• [3] The applicant asserts the body corporate failed to repair water ingress or remediate mould, mismanaged the insurance claim, and withheld records, in breach of its statutory obligations. They say the circumstances require immediate intervention due to ongoing health and safety risks, particularly with the upcoming storm season.
• [4] The applicant now wants the body corporate to engage contractors to implement work recommended by a yet to be obtained structural engineer's report to rectify water ingress and structural/façade defects. They want the body corporate to engage an expert to inspect and repair their bedroom sliding doors, panels, and windows. They want water-damage carpet, underframe and floor substrate repaired. And they want the body corporate to reimburse them for the costs they have incurred in mitigating mould in Lot 4. The applicant then seeks orders for the provision of body corporate records and to amend meeting minutes. Finally, they seek declarations that the body corporate, through its committee, breached its statutory obligations.
• [5] In the interim, the applicants want the body corporate to investigate water ingress from a balcony above their lot and undertake make-safe works; engage a contractor to carry out mould remediation and cleaning; engage an engineer to assess their main bedroom and surrounding structure; and undertake temporary remedial action to address the damage to the carpet, underlay and underframe. The applicant further seeks alternative interim orders that if the body corporate fails to act, the owners be able to undertake the actions and be reimbursed for the cost by the body corporate.
• [6] At this time, I will consider whether there is a basis to make interim orders.

• [7] Landsborough 65 community titles scheme 35027 (Landsborough 65) is a 41-lot scheme at Scarborough. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 173732.
• [8] The application seeks the following interim orders:
  1. Water ingress Make-safe

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to follow through on the insurer's builder recommendation and investigate water ingress on the level 3 balcony, and carry out any necessary make-safe works (Attachments 15, pp.3-5). Although flood testing and temporary/emergency makesafe works are currently being performed by Ian Freeme, the Body Corporate-appointed builder, it remains unclear whether the Body Corporate will implement the insurer's full recommendations.

If the Body Corporate Committee fails to act, that the lot owner be authorised to engage a suitably qualified contractor and be reimbursed by the Body Corporate for the reasonable costs incurred.

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to engage a suitably qualified and licensed contractor to carry out mould remediation and cleaning works in the master suite, living room, and bedroom 2 within 7 days of the order, and to repeat such works if mould recurs before the application for final orders is decided.

If the Body Corporate Committee fails to act, that the lot owner be authorised to engage a suitably qualified contractor and be reimbursed by the Body Corporate for the reasonable costs incurred.

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to engage an independent, suitably qualified and licensed structural engineer to carry out an assessment of the master suite and immediate surrounding structure within 14 days of the order. The assessment should identify:

• Any structural damage to the façade, internal walls, aluminium structures, and substrate of the affected lots;
• The extent of water ingress damage from levels above;
• The extent of mould growth and internal damage to walls, floors, and ceiling slabs.
• Any new or existing cracks in the façade, including the recently observed substantial crack on the second floor, to determine structural integrity and risk of further damage (Attachment 19, p.6).

This assessment is limited to evaluating structural integrity, existing water ingress damage, and associated risks. It does not duplicate or replace the ongoing work of the flood-test builder, who is currently engaged to locate and seal water entry points.

If the Body Corporate fails to engage the engineer within 14 days, the lot owner be authorised to engage an independent structural engineer at the Body Corporate's expense, with reasonable costs reimbursed.

1. Interim Request - Temporary Remediation of Water-Damaged Carpet and Underframe

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to take temporary remedial action to address mould, rot, and damage to the carpet, underlying foam, and wooden underframe in the master suite and surrounding areas, including:

• Immediate removal or containment of mould-affected carpet and underframe to prevent further health risks and property damage;
• Allowing the lot owner to carry out necessary temporary remediation if the Body Corporate fails to act within 7 days, with costs reimbursed;

This interim order is temporary and sought to prevent immediate harm to the lot owner and pets until final orders are made requiring the Body Corporate to fully repair or replace the carpet, underframe, and any related damage caused by water ingress and mould.

If immediate action is required to prevent further damage or loss of insurance rights (policy expiring 21/11/25; Attachment 21, p.2), the lot owner may take temporary measures using private contents insurance. The Body Corporate is to reimburse only reasonable costs incurred to prevent immediate harm, pending final orders for full remediation.

• [9] The application then seeks following final orders:
  1. Full Remediation of Water Ingress and Ceiling Repairs

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to:

• Engage suitably qualified and licensed contractors to implement all remediation works recommended in the structural engineer's report obtained pursuant to the interim orders (or otherwise engaged), for rectification of water ingress and structural/façade defects affecting the applicant's lot and, where identified, the broader building façade and structure.
• Commence remediation works within 14 days of this order and complete all works within a timeframe specified by the engineer or contractor.
• Provide the applicant with written confirmation that all remediation works have been completed to industry standards.

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to engage a qualified and licensed expert to carry out the previously determined inspection and repair of the suite bedroom and bedroom 2 sliding doors, panels, and windows, as per (Attachments 3, p.10; 20, p.9).

1. Replacement/repair of reimbursement of water-damage carpet, underframe and floor substrate

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate to repair the damage to the water-damaged carpet, underframe, and floor substrate caused by the Body Corporate's repeated failure to address water ingress, mould, and ongoing leaks from the master suite and surrounding areas from 17/10/24 to the present.

• If the lot owner elects to install hard flooring instead of carpet, the Body Corporate is to contribute up to the cost of replacing the carpet, including necessary substrate repairs. The lot owner will provide three quotes, and the Body Corporate will fund the selected option to that extent, consistent with by-law authorization (Attachment 1, p.7, item 16(f)).
• If contents insurance is used, the adjudicator is to order the Body Corporate to reimburse any insurance excess, financial penalty, or additional costs incurred.

1. Reimbursement of Mould Mitigation Equipment and Running Costs

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate, at its expense, to reimburse the lot owner for:

• Costs already incurred to purchase a dehumidifier, air purifier, and Concrobium cleaner, totalling AUD 966.98; and
• Electricity costs incurred from operating the dehumidifier and air purifier 24/7 from the date of purchase until completion of the water ingress and mould remediation works.

That the adjudicator order the Body Corporate to provide access to all documents, records, correspondence, and information relating to the master suite leakage and mould from 04/10/24 to present, as requested in the third and fourth formal letters (Attachments 14, pp.32-33; 18, pp.17-18), including all reports, quotes, and communications with insurers, brokers, builders, and consultants.

Where the Body Corporate asserts that any information or documents are unavailable from DCS Management, brokers, or any other party, the Body Corporate must, within 10 business days:

• Demonstrate in writing the steps taken to obtain the information from all relevant sources;
• Provide copies of all communications sent and received in pursuing the information;
• If no response is received, escalate the matter to a higher authority within the relevant organisation and provide evidence of such escalation.

That failure to comply be treated as evidence of unreasonable conduct, lack of diligence, and bad faith, permitting the adjudicator to draw an adverse inference against the Body Corporate and make any costs or other orders the adjudicator considers appropriate.

1. Correction of Minutes, Record-Keeping + Circular to All Lot Owners

That the adjudicator direct the Body Corporate to amend the minutes of meetings from February to August to accurately record all matters relating to the master suite leakage, including correspondence, determinations, and relevant discussions.

That the Body Corporate issue a circular to all lot owners clarifying the leakage issue from 04/10/24 to present, including the insurance claim process.

That the amended minutes and circular be completed within 30 days, or such other period as the adjudicator considers reasonable, and reflect a full and accurate record.

1. Declaration of Mismanagement, Negligence, and Breach of Statutory Duties

That the adjudicator declare that the Body Corporate, through its committee, failed to act diligently and in good faith, mismanaged repairs, insurance claims, and lot owner requests, and breached its statutory obligations under s.101A(1), s.94(1)(c), and related provisions, and to order any penalties, interest, or other remedies the adjudicator considers appropriate.

• [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.[1] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[3]
• [11] I note the applicant refers in the application to section 101A of the Act,[4] and schedule 1A[5]. However, those provisions relate only to individual committee members and do not impose obligations on the body corporate or committee generally. I am not clear if the applicant is purporting to raise concerns about individual committee members. However, no individual committee member is named as a respondent to this application, and they could not be.[6]

• [12] This application was lodged on 8 September 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[7] which was amended.[8]
• [13] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[9] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [14] I gave the body corporate with a limited opportunity to comment on the interim orders sought. The secretary provided a timeline of events, but no other submission or comment was made in the time provided. At my request, a member of the Commissioner's office contacted the secretary after the closing date for a submission to confirm the body corporate did not intend to submit anything further. The secretary then advised the chairperson, who had dealt with the original issue, had only just returned from overseas and they would be meeting to collect photographs and other information. The secretary then asked for an extension for its response. But they did not request a date or state when they expected to be able to make a submission.
• [15] Having regard to the contents of the application and the information submitted by the committee so far, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to delay the determination of the application for interim orders for an unspecified or indefinite time. I will proceed to determine the interim application. In due course, if the application proceeds, the body corporate will be given an opportunity to make a submission on the substantive issues in dispute.

• [16] I will note some the circumstances and relevant events, as best as I can ascertain from the submitted material and titles records.
• [17] Landsborough 65 has 12 levels, with garages on Levels A and B, residences on Levels C to K, and common property on Level L. It is registered as a building format plan of subdivision (BFP).
• [18] The boundaries in a BFP are usually defined on the survey plan by structural elements. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary will be the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[10] If part of a lot is outside a building structure (such as a balcony or courtyard), its boundaries are also usually defined by structural elements. But if there is no upper structural element, the upper boundary will be defined by the extension of the ceiling of the adjoining structure on the lot.[11]
• [19] The applicant's Lot 4 comprises a 132m2 internal area and a 241m2 courtyard on Level C and a 14m2 garage on Level B. The structure on the lot is largely surrounded by the courtyard or the adjacent Lot 5. The upper boundary of the structure on Lot 4 borders Lot 8, but the airspace above the upper boundary of the courtyard would be common property. The lot otherwise borders common property at the centre of the building and on the outer edge of the courtyard.
• [20] The applicant raised maintenance issues with the body corporate in October and November 2024, particularly an apparent leak in the main bedroom. It seems the committee discussed the issues, sought advice, provided information about maintenance responsibilities, and offered to meet the applicant. It primarily advised the issues were an owner responsibility.
• [21] The owners obtained a works proposal dated 20 November from First Response Maintenance Solutions (First Response). The quote provided for window repairs, external wall, and toilet repairs. The applicant says a quote and report from First Response was given to the body corporate on 10 February 2025. The application includes the quote but no report.
• [22] On 22 November the applicant reported significant water ingress into their main bedroom. They claimed the body corporate had agreed to address the issue and asked that it make an insurance claim or arrange an emergency repair. It is evident there was contact with the body corporate's insurers. But correspondence from the body corporate indicates an insurance claim was not made because the excess for water damage was $25,000 and the repairs were expected to be less than that. It appears the body corporate decided to rectify the matter itself instead. The parties obtained quotes from builders.
• [23] At a meeting in December the committee considered quotes to investigate water ingress above the bedroom sliding door. It accepted a quote from Aels Property Services Pty Ltd (Aels). The applicant reported more water ingress on 16 December. Aels apparently attended on 18 December to perform a flood test and removed part of the bedroom plaster ceiling. Caulking was apparently applied to cracks and holes on the wall and other suspected water entry points.
• [24] On 7 January 2025 a co-owner of Lot 4 advised the situation was better but there was still water ingress. The body corporate contacted Aels again who attended on several occasions and undertook repairs. It appears Aels then undertook further testing and advised no leakage was visible. The applicant indicates no further water ingress occurred until Cyclone Alfred. It is not evident the lot owners raised any objections to the repairs undertaken at the time.
• [25] The committee minutes in February 2025 referred to investigative work and that the repairs appeared to fix the problem. The minutes indicated a quote was being sought to complete the ceiling and outside wall. Subsequent correspondence noted Aels was not available to undertake that work until April, and the body corporate would have to seek other quotes, but the co-owner of Lot 4 indicated they were willing to wait if Aels was the best outcome.
• [26] Cyclone Alfred affected the scheme in early March. At a 10 March meeting, the committee noted there was further water ingress to Lot 4 during the cyclone. It sought advice from the body corporate manager (BCM). The meeting minutes include a general report on the cyclone, which noted water damage issues for four lots.
• [27] In response to a request for details of the cyclone damage to Lot 4, on 17 March the co-owner of Lot 4 said water entered the main bedroom window with greater intensity and soaked the carpet; the living room door leaked, was subsequently harder to open, and a tile broke in half; and there was a leak in the second bedroom window frame.
• [28] The originally planned repairs to the Lot 4 ceiling were paused pending the insurance claim.
• [29] On 26 March the body corporate advised that a loss adjuster, Crawford Strata Services (Crawford), had been appointed by the insurer to assess the claim and sought access to Lot 4 on 7 April. There was subsequently ongoing correspondence between the applicant, BCM, and insurance broker about the status of Crawford's report. Crawford submitted the report to the insurer on 28 June, having noted delays from the large volume of cyclone-related claims.
• [30] On 25 June the applicant said their bedroom floor was drenched after 5 days of rain and they were struggling to prevent mould. On 1 July the applicant gave the insurance broker, on request, with information about ongoing water and mould in the lot. They included a termite report from an inspection on 4 June (which did not identify termites) said there was mould present from a 'previous and perhaps ongoing water leak in the master bedroom'.
• [31] On 2 July the insurance broker advised that Crawford had asked the committee to discuss with the owner of Lot 4 the repairs underway prior to the cyclone. They said the cause of the water ingress needed to be fixed before ceiling works proceeded.
• [32] On 29 July the insurance broker said the insurer had accepted indemnity but there were identified maintenance issues that caused water ingress.
• [33] On 30 July Crawford gave the applicant a builder's report from Ezy Projects for Lot 4 but not their own report. They said they asked Advanced Buildings (Queensland) Pty Ltd (Advanced Buildings) to complete a 'make safe for a remediation wipe down' of the main bedroom sliding door and wall, and the claim was waiting a second quote.
• [34] The Ezy Projects report for Lot 4 is dated 6 June and referred to an inspection on 29 April. It noted the owners were claiming for water ingress via the ceiling linings of the main bedroom and sliding doors in the living room and study. It noted the ceiling linings had been removed and there was an attempt to waterproof the exterior. It said the owners reported no previous instances of water ingress. The report summarised the damage as a loose windowpane in the living room sliding door, a cracked floor tile in the living room, and water damage to the ceiling lining in the main bedroom. It said the cracked tile was not the result of the weather event, but long-term degradation and delamination of the tile adhesive.
• [35] Ezy Projects opined that the external block wall had not permitted water ingress into the main bedroom. Rather, it believed it had tracked down from the wall cavity in the unit above either from the second level window seals or the third level balcony. It said it was unable to confirm the cause of water ingress without accessing the above units and conducting tests. It recommended a specialist be engaged.
• [36] After the applicant pursued a complaint, the insurer gave two loss adjuster reports redacted to only include information about Lot 4 to the applicant. It appears the reports were provided to all owners involved in the claim on 8 August. The insurer told the applicant its obligation was only to the body corporate. It said it had issued instructions for a builder to inspect the area and complete make-safe if necessary. It sought substantiation of the applicant's allegation that the committee had acted negligently and in breach of its duty to maintain common property.
• [37] The application includes two Crawford reports. The first was dated 11 April. For Lot 4, it said ceramic floor tiles in the living room were drummy and the owner reported rain overflowed from the courtyard into the living area during the storm. It said the bedroom ceiling was being repaired from a previous claim and the owner sighted water running down the ceiling frame and onto the carpet during the storm. For bedroom 3, it reported that rainwater dripped through the metal window frame and wet the carpet but there was no visible water damage. It said it asked Ezy Project to report on the cause of all water ingress and quote for repairs.
• [38] The second Crawford report was dated 25 June. It said noted the Ezy Projects report on the cause of water ingress to Lot 4 and that Ezy Projects had quoted $5,699.64 to repair the sliding door in the living room and to supply plasterboard sheeting and paint the ceiling in the master bedroom. It did not recommend the repairs because the sliding door repairs were maintenance related and the ceiling was being repaired by the body corporate under a separate incident.
• [39] It appears the body corporate still intends to reinstate the ceiling in Lot 4. On 7 August the chairperson sought access to Lot 4 for a tradesperson to quote for the repair.
• [40] On 8 August the applicant alleged misinformation and miscommunication by the body corporate and commented on the responsibility for repairs. On 11 August the secretary acknowledged the concerns but said the Crawford reports were the first formal documentation the body corporate had received. They said the body corporate had made multiple attempts to obtain further information and it was awaiting further instructions from the insurer. They said the body corporate could not take further action until guidance was provided.
• [41] Committee minutes dated 11 August noted that repair work for Lot 4 was on hold pending the insurance outcome. It said it was awaiting quotes for investigation and repair. It said "Insurance has advised further investigation for other possible leak as ingress was not a result of maintenance done prior to TC Alfred." The minutes separately report on the claim for 5 lots.
• [42] Further communications ensued between the applicant, body corporate and insurance broker.
• [43] Advanced Buildings provided a report dated 15 August following an attendance on 4 August. It said the owner advised there was mould throughout the bedroom but at the inspection no visible mould was identified. It said all areas of concern were treated with an antimicrobial solution, but the ongoing water ingress reported by the owners would need to be rectified.
• [44] On 19 August the insurance broker emailed the applicant about the status of the dispute. They confirmed no claim had been lodged for the event in 2024 but the body corporate was obtaining quotes for the repairs to put to the next general meeting. Regarding the cyclone damage, they advised Crawford said there were 'no resultant water damage repairs covered' for Lot 4 and the only costs incurred for the lot was the make safe for Advanced Building to wipe down the glass sliding door. They said the '...external maintenance repairs to the paint rendered wall outside the main bedroom and the leaking seals around the glass sliding door to the main bedroom will not be covered under this claim as these are maintenance issues that have allowed the water ingress.' Also, the cracked floor tile was noted as being unrelated to the storm event. The broker noted that if the owner did not agree, they could obtain an alternative report from a qualified tradesperson as to the cause and resultant damage.
• [45] An insurance representative subsequently contacted the owners of Lot 4 in August about claiming for their bedroom carpet under their content's insurance. The owners apparently decided not to make a claim because they intended to replace the carpet with hard flooring.
• [46] On 20 August the applicant wrote to the body corporate asserting it was not complying with the Act. They provided a list of matters on which they sought action within 7 days.
• [47] After pursuing quotes, in late August the body corporate engaged Haystar Pty Ltd (Haystar) to test for water ingress from levels 2 and 3. Haystar has apparently attended Lot 4 on multiple occasions since. In emails on 30 and 31 August the secretary said the body corporate had approved the ceiling repairs but was checking the water ingress first. They noted that possible water ingress from higher levels was first mentioned in the report received on 8 August.
• [48] On 2 September the applicant provided information about a flood test and requested a 'make-safe' for mould in the living room as a matter of urgency. They later asserted the mould was a direct result of the ongoing water ingress which was a body corporate responsibility. They disputed being responsible for mould remediation. The secretary responded on 4 September acknowledging water ingress in Lot 4 but saying they were still determining if the water was coming from common property, within the lot, or a combination. They said the committee was awaiting the Haystar report and could not commit body corporate funds to clean the lot.
• [49] It was at this point that this application was lodged.
• [50] The body corporate's timeline indicates that Haystar has sealed a window on level 2 from the inside, tested the window, and undertaken maintenance work from the inside of Lot 8. It indicates that Haystar planned to investigate the level 3 balcony but had not yet been able to.

• [51] The only issue at this time is whether interim orders are warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [52] The purpose of an interim order is to grant temporary relief or preserve the status quo until the substantive issues in dispute can be resolved. It is not a means of expediting the final determination of a substantive issue.
• [53] The interim orders sought by the applicant, that the body corporate undertake a range of actions, are in the nature of 'mandatory injunctions'. Most commonly, interim orders restrain a party from acting. It is also possible to make a mandatory injunction that imposes a positive obligation on a party to undertake a specific act. That could be to restore a situation to its original state, or to fulfill legal obligations, until the substantive issues in dispute can be determined. But as adjudicators have previously commented, mandatory injunctions impose a non-compensable burden or loss on a respondent and are rarely made by the courts.[12]
• [54] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[13] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[14] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions, establishing a prima facie case. The adjudicator must then balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted, to justify the injunctive relief. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm. While the same test applies to a mandatory injunction as for a prohibitory injunction, the fact that the relief is mandatory often tilts the balance of convenience in favour of a respondent.[15]

• [55] An adjudicator cannot make an order requiring action to be taken simply because that may seem fair or is the preferred course of action for an applicant. Rather, an applicant must identify a specific legal issue, such as a failure to comply with the legislation, and establish that the particular order sought is necessary to remedy that contravention. The first question for me at this stage then is whether the applicant has identified a prima facie case on a legal issue that might warrant any of the final orders sought.
• [56] I will note at the outset that I have found the legal basis for the application to be unclear. Simply listing a multitude of legislative provisions and making generic allegations of alleged breaches does not explain how it is asserted those provisions have been contravened or how the particular orders sought are necessary to remedy the alleged contraventions.

• [57] This dispute substantively relates to responsibility for repairs. I will note first the legislation in regard to maintenance and damage and then comment on the orders sought.

• [58] An owner must maintain their lot in good condition except where it is a body corporate responsibility.[16] A body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[17] In a BFP (which this scheme is) the body corporate is generally responsible for the building exterior, and owners are generally responsible for the interior of their lot. However, it is more complex than that.
• [59] In a BFP, a body corporate must maintain the following things that are not on common property in good condition:[18]
  1. railings, parapets, and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property
  2. doors, windows, and fittings in the boundary of a lot and common property, and
  3. roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property.
• [60] Similarly, the body corporate must maintain foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection, and essential supporting framework including load-bearing walls, in structurally sound condition.[19] It is pertinent to note that required maintenance or repairs are not structural merely because they relate to a structure or a structural element. Broadly speaking, a structural issue is one that affects the stability or functional integrity of the building structure.
• [61] The legislation then includes numerous exceptions to the general principles about maintenance responsibilities.[20] For example, a body corporate is not responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings that were installed by an occupier for their benefit.[21] And if an owner has been authorised by the body corporate to make an improvement to common property, the owner must maintain that improvement unless excused by the body corporate.[22]
• [62] Notably, the courtyard of Lot 4 is part of the lot, with the upper boundary of the courtyard being defined by the extension of the ceiling of the interior of the lot. The owners of Lot 4 are, therefore, responsible for the maintaining most of the exterior of Lot 4 (as well as the interior) in good condition. The exterior windows and doors of Lot 4 are within the boundaries of the lot and are not a body corporate responsibility. The body corporate would have some responsibility for the wall surrounding the courtyard, for roofing membranes providing protection, and for maintaining structural elements of the lot in a structurally sound condition.

• [63] The legislation provides for an adjudicator to order a person to repair an applicant's damaged property or reimburse an applicant for repairs they have carried out.[23] That does not provide a general power to address damage or provide compensation to an applicant; it is limited to repairing property damage arising from specific contraventions.
• [64] If satisfied an applicant suffered property damage because of a contravention of the Act or CMS, an adjudicator could make an order against a person the adjudicator believes on reasonable grounds was responsible for the contravention. For example, repairs to a lot are normally the responsibility of the owner. But an adjudicator could order that the body corporate be responsible for those repairs if satisfied on the evidence that the damage to the lot occurred because the body corporate breached its statutory maintenance responsibilities. The person alleging the breach bears the onus of proof.
• [65] The legislation requires the body corporate to hold building insurance.[24] The intention is to protect the property interests of owners and occupiers as well as the body corporate. Owners and occupiers would inherently have a right, whether directly or via the body corporate, to make claims on that insurance for any property damage that is covered by the insurance policy. Often claims are submitted and managed by the body corporate, but potentially they can be submitted and managed by the affected owner. There is no statutory requirement for the body corporate to manage an insurance claim; it may depend on the preferences of the body corporate and its insurer and the particular circumstances. It is for the insurer to determine if an event or resulting damage is covered by the particular policy and whether damage will be paid for under the policy. But whether or not damage to a lot is covered by the body corporate's insurance policy is not determinative of whether the owner, body corporate, or some other person is responsible under the body corporate legislation for the damage.
• [66] One of the general functions imposed by the legislation on a body corporate is to administer the common property for the benefit of owners.[25] The body corporate must act reasonably in undertaking its general functions, including in making decisions.[26] Similarly, the committee must act reasonably in making decisions.[27] But the body corporate cannot act beyond its statutory authority. The obligation to act reasonably does not mean the body corporate must take responsibility for things it is otherwise not liable for just because that might seem fair.

• [67] By final orders 1, 2, 3 and 4, the applicant wants the body corporate:
  1. In regard to water ingress and ceiling repairs, to engage contractors to undertake remediation works recommended by a structural engineer (in the report sought by interim order 3) to rectify water ingress and structural/façade defects.
  2. To engage an expert to inspect and repair bedroom sliding doors, panels, and windows.
  3. To repair or replace water-damage carpet, underframe, and floor substrate.
  4. To reimburse them for the costs incurred in mitigating mould in Lot 4.
• [68] If there is ongoing water ingress to Lot 4, it is of course appropriate to obtain advice from an appropriately qualified person as to the cause of the water ingress and then engage appropriately qualified persons to rectify the cause. Whether or not there is ongoing water ingress, damage from past water ingress should be also repaired to ensure the lot is in good condition. However, who is responsible for obtaining advice and undertaking rectification works would depend on the cause of the water ingress and the damage.
• [69] The ceilings, doors, panels, windows, carpets and flooring within Lot 4, and the façade of the lot, are all within the boundaries of Lot 4. Prima facie is the responsibility of the owners of Lot 4 to maintain those elements in good condition. The starting point is that the owners are responsible for damage to Lot 4 unless they can establish it was or likely was caused by something that the body corporate or another person was responsible for.
• [70] If the water ingress to Lot 4 arose from the common property or lots above Lot 4, the body corporate may have obligations. If the structural elements of Lot 4 (like load bearing walls) are not in a structurally sound condition, the body corporate may have responsibilities.
• [71] But if the water ingress to Lot 4 arose from defects or inadequate maintenance within Lot 4, including non-structural defects in structural elements, the owners would be responsible for investigations and repairs. And if it to Lot 4 arose from defects or inadequate maintenance in another lot, the owner of that other lot may be liable for the cost.
• [72] This application appears to be predicated on the assumption that the body corporate is responsible for all investigations and repairs required in relation to Lot 4. But the applicant bears the onus of proof in this regard. At this stage, the applicant provides little argument and no evidence that any damage to Lot 4 arose because of a statutory breach by the body corporate such as a failure to maintain something that it was responsible for.
• [73] The fact that the body corporate has previously investigated water ingress or damage to Lot 4, or previously undertaken repairs, or agreed to undertake future repairs, does not mean the body corporate is legally responsible for any or all water ingress to Lot 4 or the resulting damage. For example, it appears the committee may have pursued the initial investigations and repairs, not because it accepted they were a body corporate responsibility, but because to avoid the insurance excess for a water ingress claim.[28] Furthermore, it is questionable whether an agreement to repair a ceiling could rationally be extrapolated as an acceptance of responsibility for all repairs that may be currently necessary within the lot.
• [74] It appears the cause of water ingress into Lot 4 remains unclear. And given the different water ingress events, I am unclear from the submitted material whether there is a single cause, multiple causes, or different causes for different instances of water ingress.
• [75] The applicant's email to the body corporate on 8 August stated they did not know the cause of the leakage. The Ezy Projects report opined that some water ingress arose from levels above, but recommended expert investigation. The application says the body corporate-appointed builder (presumably Haystar) confirmed water ingress from Level 2, but the application does not include any report or other evidence of any such finding. And it is not clear if those apparent opinions relate to all water ingress into Lot 4 or only some of it.
• [76] If any water ingress into Lot 4 was caused by something outside Lot 4, until the precise cause and the exact originating location is identified, it cannot be determined that there was any statutory breach on the part of the body corporate rather than, for example, a third party.
• [77] Arguably a reasonable body corporate would only investigate maintenance issues if there was some cogent basis to believe the issues could have arisen from a cause it is responsible for. It is evident that the body corporate investigated the water ingress reported in November 2024. And since it was alerted in August 2025 to the potential that the water ingress had originated from upper levels, it has sought to investigate the source of the water ingress further. But that does not of itself mean it is responsible for the water ingress.
• [78] Having regard to the final orders sought, the applicant has not provided reports or other evidence detailing the work they assert is required to rectify water ingress and repair the damage to Lot 4, relative to any causes that the body corporate they may be responsible for. They have not provided quotes for the work they want the body corporate to undertake.[29] They want a structural engineer's report obtained without providing any indication that the water ingress arose from a structural defect or may have resulted in structural deficiencies.
• [79] The applicant's communications also appear to reflect a belief that the body corporate is responsible for investigating the condition of Lot 4, obtaining reports and quotes, and providing information to the owners. But the application does not explain why the owners have not or could not arrange investigations and obtain expert reports themselves.
• [80] At this stage, the applicant has not yet provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima face case that the body corporate has failed to undertake investigations and repairs that it is legally responsible for, such that the final orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be warranted.
• [81] The applicant also has not shown they have asked the body corporate for most of the actions sought in this application. They do not appear to have submitted motions and quotes to the committee or to a general meeting proposing the works they are asking for. I note the quantum of works sought, if a body corporate responsibility, may be beyond the committee spending limit.[30] Accordingly, the applicant has not yet demonstrated a dispute with the body corporate that they have made reasonable attempts to resolve directly,[31] for many orders they seek.

• [82] The applicant seeks an order (final order 5) that the body corporate provide documents, records, correspondence, and information regarding the leakage in the main bedroom and resulting mould. They also ask that, if any information or documents are unavailable, the body corporate must demonstrate the steps it has taken to obtain the information.

• [83] The legislation defines 'records' for a body corporate and sets out the records a body corporate must keep.[32] Section 205 of the Act entitles 'interested persons' (including owners) to access body corporate records within seven days after the body corporate receives a written request that is accompanied by the prescribed fee.[33] The section provides for access by way of permitting the person to inspect the records, or giving the person a copy of a record, or both.
• [84] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has noted there is no obligation on a body corporate to provide records until the prescribed fee is paid or at the very least there is some agreement about the payment of the fee.[34]
• [85] A body corporate is only required to give access to existing records it holds at the time of a request. If a requested record has not been created, received, or retained by the body corporate (even if it should have been), it cannot rationally provide access to it. A body corporate does not have to create a document, extract information from other documents, answer questions, or source information, to satisfy a statutory request for records. Moreover, if there is a need to interrogate the records to identify information a person wants to know (or the absence of that information), it will be a matter for the person to review the records themselves.
• [86] The legislation also requires the body corporate to give owners various notices and minutes about meetings and decisions. In some cases, it may be required to give statutory notices before it takes action.[35] But beyond that, there is no general statutory obligation on a body corporate and its committee to communicate with owners or occupiers. As noted above, the body corporate must act reasonably. What individual or general communication is necessary and appropriate to meet the obligation to act reasonably will depend on the circumstances of a particular issue, including the resources of the body corporate and its other obligations.

• [87] The applicant asserts the committee has failed to respond, or only partially responded, to requests for documents, referencing several requests.
• [88] The applicant asserts that the failure to disclose records has impacted their ability to do various things relating to the dispute, eroded their trust in the committee and the BCM, raised concerns about the body corporate's record-keeping, and caused confusion about the insurance claim.
• [89] On 2 June the applicant asked the body corporate for 'all documents and correspondence' relating to the insurance claim relating to the damage to Lot 4 by 9 June. The BCM forwarded an email exchange with the insurance broker about the status of the matter. The applicant said they still expected the requested documents. The BCM advised it would take several days to compile the requested information, sought confirmation of the request, and advised a fee of 0.70c per page applied. On 3 June the BCM confirmed the fee applied to electronic copies.
• [90] The application also refers to requests on 1, 9, 11, 15 and 28 July. In the submitted material I can identify numerous emailed requests to the body corporate in July for information on the status of the insurance claim. Some sought the loss adjuster's report, but the BCM explained that had not been given to the body corporate at the time.
• [91] On 1 August the applicant requested specific insurance-related documentation and information regarding the claim for water ingress to Lot 4 by 12 August. They said this had been requested multiple times without success and they had been unlawfully denied access to critical documents and information. The secretary advised they were awaiting advice from the BCM, insurance broker, loss assessor and insurer about the matter.
• [92] On 20 August the applicant requested, amongst other things, access to inspect all records relating to their main bedroom leaking before the cyclone, including quotes, reports, and correspondence, within 7 days. There were also other queries in August for information about the status of matters.
• [93] Clearly the applicant has requested body corporate records. But at this stage, the applicant has not established that they made a valid request that would enliven a statutory obligation on the body corporate to provide copies of records or enable an inspection of the records. The applicant was informed of the prescribed fee for records and has not established that they have ever paid a fee or attempted to do so.
• [94] Beyond that, the applicant has not yet clearly established that the body corporate has unreasonably failed to obtain or provide information. On its face, the body corporate generally appears to have responded promptly to the applicant's queries and provided the information it had at the time. It is not immediately evident why the responses should be viewed as incorrect or misleading given the information reasonably available to the body corporate. The applicant appears to believe the body corporate had an obligation to source information it did not have at the time, such as the loss adjuster's reports, but that belief is not substantiated.
• [95] Accordingly, at this stage the applicant has not established a prima facie case that the body corporate has failed to meet its statutory obligations regarding records or other information.
• [96] If the applicant wants to inspect the body corporate's records or obtain copies of specific records currently held by the body corporate, they can make an explicit written request to do so. That request should be accompanied by the relevant prescribed fee or (if copies are sought) at least a commitment to pay the fee when it is ascertained. If the applicant seeks copies of specifically identified documents, the body corporate should promptly advise the applicant of the number of pages involved so the applicant can pay the prescribed fee. If the prescribed fee is paid, the body corporate must provide access to the records within 7 days. However, the body corporate is only obliged to provide documents it actually holds. It is not required to generate documents, review documents to extract information, or source information or documents from third parties, to satisfy the applicant's request for information.

• [97] The applicant wants (by final order 6) the body corporate to amend the minutes of meetings from February to August 2025 to 'accurately record' all matters relating to the leak in their main bedroom, including correspondence, determinations, and relevant discussions. They then want the body corporate to issue a circular to all owners clarifying the issue since October.
• [98] The applicant claims the minutes are factually incorrect, incomplete, and misleading. They say repair responsibilities are not properly recorded and clarification requests were ignored. They raise concerns about body corporate record-keeping and communication.
• [99] The regulations require the committee to take full and accurate minutes of its meetings and keep a full and accurate record of motions passed outside a meeting.[36] The regulations detail what must be included in full and accurate minutes and records. There is no legislative requirement for details of committee discussions to be recorded in minutes, although the committee could choose to include a summary of discussions. There is no requirement for details of correspondence, reports, notices, or other documents produced or received by the body corporate to be included in the minutes unless they were tabled at the meeting.
• [100] The regulations also require the body corporate to take full and accurate minutes, as defined in the provision, of each general meeting.[37] Again, there is no requirement for general meeting minutes to record discussions at a general meeting.
• [101] The applicant does not explain how they assert any meeting minutes are incorrect, or what specific corrections are required. Arguably, an order could not be made in the very vague terms sought. The applicant also does not identify any legal basis to require the body corporate to provide a circular to all owners about the issues with Lot 4. Accordingly, the applicant has not yet established a genuine legal issue that might warrant relief on this issue.
• [102] The applicant also has not demonstrated that they have raised specific concerns about the contents of meeting minutes with the body corporate, asked for any minutes to be amended, or asked the body corporate to issue a circular to all owners. Accordingly, the applicant has not yet demonstrated the existence of a dispute with the body corporate on this issue.

• [103] The applicant seeks (by final order 7) a declaration that the body corporate, through its committee, has failed to act diligently and in good faith, mismanaged repairs, insurance claims, and lot owner requests, and breached its statutory obligations.
• [104] The applicant alleges a pattern of administrative negligence, bad faith, and obstruction. They assert there have been unjustified delays, contradictory and withheld information, poor record-keeping, an abdication of responsibilities, and dismissive conduct. They argue this has worsened their property damage, mould, health risks, and financial and emotional burdens.
• [105] The justification and need for a declaration would be a matter for consideration following the determination of the substantive issues in dispute in the context of the final orders sought. However, I will make some preliminary remarks.
• [106] Adjudicators have broad powers to make orders to resolve the dispute in an application. It is open to an adjudicator to make a declaration about legal rights and responsibilities. However, the case law suggests that a bare declaration that some legal obligation has been contravened may only be appropriate if it would serve to redress the harm brought about by the contravention and would produce some foreseeable consequences.[38]
• [107] In this case, the applicant seeks very broad declarations. If the body corporate has acted in the manner alleged, and in doing so has breached its statutory obligations, the application does not indicate the purpose of the declaration sought. Where specific orders have been sought, presumably to remedy specific concerns, it is not clear what utility the declaration sought would have or what foreseeable consequences it would produce.
• [108] And from a preliminary review of the submitted material, the applicant has not yet established any systemic mismanagement, bad faith, excessive delay, or other inappropriate conduct on the part of the body corporate. In that context, they have not yet presented a prima facie case that the body corporate has generally acted unreasonably or otherwise contrary to law.
• [109] For example, the applicant has not yet established that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to await the outcome of the insurance claim related to damage to Lot 4 before pursuing further repairs to the lot. In the circumstances, it may have been unclear if there was any relationship between the previous water ingress and the cyclone damage, or the cause of either. It is not clear why the body corporate would be responsible for the time taken by insurers to process claims. The body corporate has no capacity to direct the actions of the insurer or the substance of any communications or reports provided by or on behalf of the insurer. Similarly, the availability of contractors to undertake investigations and works may have been outside the body corporate's control. Regard must be given to the limitations on the role of the body corporate, the BCM, and volunteer committee members, and that the progress of the insurance claim was largely out of the hands of the body corporate.
• [110] Also, despite being informed of their maintenance responsibilities, it is not clear that the owners of Lot 4 have undertaken any repairs themselves, obtained reports about any water ingress or damage, or sought quotes for the works they currently seek. They appear to believe the body corporate is responsible for doing everything, but that responsibility is not yet established.

• [111] The application says the applicant seeks, in regard to each of the substantive final orders, that if the body corporate fails to comply with orders made, the adjudicator may impose monetary penalties or adjustments, including interest on reimbursed costs or expenses incurred in rectifying non-compliance. Penalties, interest, and other remedies are also sought in order 7.
• [112] Although those requests are a matter to be determined in the context of the final orders sought, I will comment on them for the information of the parties.
• [113] The failure to comply with an order is an offence and a penalty can be imposed in respect of that offence.[39] However, an adjudicator has no statutory power to impose a penalty for that offence or in respect of any other penalty provision in the legislation. Moreover, neither an adjudicator nor the Commissioner's office has any role in enforcing an order. If final orders were made in the applicant's favour, and not complied with, the applicant could seek to enforce the order in the Magistrates Court and seeking any penalty or costs in doing so.[40] Accordingly, it is not apparent that I would have the statutory power to make the orders sought.

• [114] Having regard to the matters canvassed above, I will comment on whether the particular interim orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances.

• [115] First, the applicant wants the body corporate to investigate the water ingress on Level 3 and carry out necessary 'make-safe' works.
• [116] Ezy Projects suggested an investigation be undertaken into possible water ingress from the levels above Lot 4. It did not comment on who was responsible for those investigations. It appears the body corporate has pursued investigations. But, as outlined above, the applicant has not yet substantiated that such investigations are necessarily a body corporate responsibility. Moreover, the applicant has not established why any investigations that have not yet been undertaken by the body corporate (if it is obliged to investigate further) are so urgent as to warrant a mandatory injunction about them.
• [117] If there were significant and urgent health and safety risks, potentially that could give rise to the need for a mandatory injunction for temporary make-safe works. But the applicant gives no indication of what make-safe works they assert are required, why they are urgent, or why the body corporate is responsible for them.

• [118] The applicant indicates Haystar has been engaged by the body corporate to undertake make-safe works. That is not clear from the submitted material. But if Haystar has been engaged for that purpose, it is not clear why an order is required. Moreover, I note that Ezy Project's report said no make-safe works were required. The insurer only authorised 'make-safe' works in the form of an anti-microbial wipe down of a sliding door on 4 August. The applicant alleges the body corporate has failed to follow the insurer's make safe instructions, but I am unable to identify any such instructions in the submitted material.
• [119] The applicant says there is ongoing water ingress into the main bedroom, and an immediate risk of further water ingress with the impending storm season. That may be the case. But the nature, frequency, and extent of any current water ingress is not clearly explained. The applicant broadly claims that intervention is required to prevent further property damage, structural deterioration, and health and safety risks. But there is no detail or evidence of the risk of such consequences. Moreover, the applicant does not explain how further investigations or unspecified make-safe works would alleviate the alleged risks before the determination of the final orders.
• [120] Accordingly, even if the body corporate is responsible for any of the water ingress into Lot 4 (which is not yet established), the applicant has not substantiated the basis for this order.

• [121] Next the applicant wants the body corporate to engage a contractor to carry out mould remediation and cleaning the main bedroom, living room, and bedroom 2 within 7 days of the order, and to repeat those works if mould recurs before the final orders are decided.
• [122] The applicant says they are managing mould with chemical cleaning and an air purifier and dehumidifier. But they say mould growth is ongoing and worsening due to the unresolved water ingress. They require treatment to protect their health and prevent further damage.
• [123] While there may be mould in Lot 4, the applicant provides little evidence of it. A termite inspection reported mould in the lot in early June but gave no detail of the location or extent. The application includes some photographs provided to the body corporate in July that claim to show mould on a door frame, and saying the mould on the walls was not visible due to the application of a mould removal product. However, Advanced Buildings was not able to identify any visible mould when it inspected the lot on 4 August. The application also provides photographs apparently taken in early September alleging mould growth on a living room wall, but the presence of mould is not necessarily clear from the photographs.
• [124] The applicant does not appear to have obtained professional advice on the existence, extent, or cause of mould in Lot 4, the work required to address it, or the urgency of that work. They do not appear to have obtained quotes for the work they seek or submitted them to the body corporate. More fundamentally, they have not yet established that any mould in Lot 4 arose from a cause the body corporate is responsible for, such that it is responsible for remediation.
• [125] On the submitted material, the applicant has not substantiated the basis for the second interim order. If the applicant considers that work beyond their current actions to manage mould are necessary, it is open to them to engage contractors to undertake those works themselves and then subsequently seek to claim any expenditure from the body corporate if it is ultimately determined that the body corporate is liable for the existence of mould in Lot 4.

• [126] The applicant then wants the body corporate to engage a structural engineer to assess the main bedroom of Lot 4 and the surrounding structure. They want the assessment to identify any structural damage to the façade, internal walls, aluminium structures, and substrate of affected lots, the extent of water ingress damage from levels above, the extent of mould growth and internal damage to walls, floors, and ceiling slabs, and any new or existing cracks in the façade to determine structural integrity and risk of further damage.
• [127] The applicant asserts this order is required to prevent further property damage, mitigate health risks, and identify urgent safety issues.
• [128] Although there has undoubtedly been water ingress at Lot 4, the applicant does not provide any evidence that the water ingress has or could lead to any risk to the structural integrity of Lot 4 or the building more generally. The applicant says a large crack appeared over the door in the second-floor façade the week before the application was lodged. They provide a single undated photograph of a crack in exterior render, but there is nothing to indicate whether it could signify a structural issue rather than being merely cosmetic. Moreover, I cannot identify that the applicant has raised concerns with the body corporate about the crack or any genuine risks to the structural integrity of the lot or asked it to obtain structural engineering advice.
• [129] I have insufficient information at this stage to comment on whether it would be appropriate to obtain engineering advice. But given the circumstances and the submitted evidence, I do not consider that obtaining a structural engineer's assessment can be viewed as temporary or interim in nature. And the applicant has not established any particular urgency beyond their desire to resolve the matter. It is arguable that by this order the applicant is seeking to have the body corporate to pay to obtain evidence to support the applicant's substantive claims in this dispute. I do not consider the applicant has substantiated that interim order 3 is warranted.
• [130] It is open to the applicant to obtain quotes for an engineering assessment and put them to the body corporate with a motion proposing that the body corporate engage an engineer. It is also open to the applicant to obtain an assessment themselves and seek to claim the cost from the body corporate if the report identifies a structural issue that is a body corporate responsibility.

Interim order 4 - Temporary remediation of carpet and underframe

• [131] The applicant next seeks an interim order that the body corporate undertake 'temporary remedial action' to address mould, rot and damage to the carpet, underlying foam, and wooden underframe in the main bedroom and surrounding areas. The action sought is said to include the removal or containment of the mould affected carpet and underframe.
• [132] The applicant includes no evidence of the condition of the carpet, underlay and underframe beyond a couple of uninformative photographs. They do not appear to have obtained professional advice on the condition of the carpet, underlay or underframe, the work required to remedy them temporarily or permanently, or the urgency of that work. They do not appear to have obtained quotes for the work they want undertaken, and the specifics of the work sought (or how it is temporary) is not clear. Furthermore, the applicant has not yet shown that any damage to the carpet, underlay and underframe has arisen from a cause the body corporate is responsible for, such that the body corporate should be responsible for rectifying it.
• [133] I also note the applicant appears to have been informed by the insurer they are entitled they would be entitled to claim on their content's insurance for the carpets. Moreover, the insurer indicated they could obtain a cash settlement which they could use to install alternative flooring if that was their preference. The applicant does not explain why they cannot or should not pursue that option to address any damage to the carpets in the lot.

• [134] In each of the four interim orders, the applicant also seeks an alternative order that if the body corporate does not undertake the steps sought in that interim order, the lot owner be authorised to take those steps themselves and then be reimbursed for their costs by the body corporate. Such orders are not amenable to an interim order.
• [135] In any event, the applicant does not require the authority of an adjudicator to engage persons to undertake works on their own lot or to obtain professional advice about their lot. Whether the body corporate could or should be liable for any expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of their lot would be dependent on the applicant establishing to the requisite standard that the body corporate was legally liable for the damage and the resulting expenditure.

• [136] It is understandable that the owners of Lot 4 are frustrated by time involved in resolving the water ingress and repair issues that have arisen in their lot since October 2024.
• [137] However, it is not immediately evident the extent to which any responsibility for mitigation actions and repairs, or the delay, rests with the body corporate. It appears the applicant may misapprehend the rights and obligations under the legislation and may have misunderstood some of the information provided to them. It also appears the applicant may have unrealistic expectations about how a body corporate can and should be administered.
• [138] At this stage the applicant has not identified a prima facie case on specific legal issues that would warrant the final orders currently sought. And even if they had, the applicant has not established that the circumstances would justify the interim orders sought. It follows that I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
• [139] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[41]
• [140] The applicant may wish to review the contents and basis for this application having regard to the matters outlined above. If the application proceeds, I will recommend to the Commissioner that it be referred to conciliation. It may be that the parties could, through a mediated discussion, reach an agreement on how to progress the issues in dispute. The information provided in these reasons may assist the parties in that regard. If the dispute is not otherwise resolved, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions from the committee and all owners in respect of the final orders.
• [141] Notwithstanding the dismissal of the application for interim orders, I stress that if the body corporate obtains or receives professional advice confirming that the cause of any or all of the water ingress to Lot 4 does arise from a cause the body corporate is responsible for, it should act promptly to rectify that cause and any damage to Lot 4 that directly resulted from that water ingress. It does not need to wait for the final determination of this application, or any conciliation process, to act.

[3] See sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act.

[4] This section provides for the protection of committee members from liability.

[5] This is the code of conduct for committee voting members, pursuant to section 101B of the Act.

[6] Noting the limitation on parties to a dispute in section 227(1) of the Act.

[10] Sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[11] Registrar of Titles Directions for the Preparation of Plans, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development, 1998-2025, paragraphs 9.6.3 and 4

[12] For example, Somerset Gardens [2023] QBCCMCmr 332, para 4

[15] Bingham & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores P/L [2003] QCA 402 at 106-8 citing R P Meagher, J D Heydon and M J Leeming, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity, Doctrines and Remedies (Butterworths LexisNexis, 4th ed, 2002) at 21-395

[16] Section 201 of the Accommodation Module

[17] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

[18] Section 170(2)(a) of the Accommodation Module

[19] Section 170(2)(b) of the Accommodation Module

[20] It is not necessary for present purposes to detail all the statutory exceptions.

[21] Section 170(3) of the Accommodation Module

[22] Section 177 of the Accommodation Module

[24] Section 188 of the Accommodation Module

[25] Section 94(1) of the Act

[26] Section 94(2) of the Act

[27] Section 100(5) of the Act

[28] I note section 193 of the Accommodation Module regarding insurance excesses.

[29] It is not clear the applicant wants the body corporate to pursue the quotes obtained in November 2024.

[30] Section 162 of the Accommodation Module

[31] Noting section 238(1)(b) of the Act

[32] See the definition of 'records' in the schedule 6 of the Act and section 231 of the Standard Module

[33] The prescribed fees are set out in section 222 of the Accommodation Module

[34] Body Corporate for the Rocks Resort CTS 9435 v East [2014] QCATA 308, particularly at 10 and 13, and Ainsworth v Body Corporate for Viridian Noosa Residences CTS 34034 [2014] QCATA 176 at 54

[35] For example, pursuant to section 163 of the Act

[36] Section 63 of the Accommodation Module

[37] Section 107 of the Accommodation Module

[38] Truth About Motorways v Macquarie [2000] HCA 11, Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10