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

MAINTENANCE - whether the body corporate or the lot owner is required to replace windows and doors at the front of a lot.

Standard Module, s 180

1. Within 7 days of the date of this order, the Body Corporate for Leinster Square must engage Amalgamated Glass to perform the scope of works in estimate 00029054, even if the originally quoted cost has increased.
2. The body corporate must make all reasonable endeavours to ensure the work is completed as soon as practicable.

• [1] This application is about the responsibility for maintaining glass sliding doors and upper-level windows at the front of Lot 9.
• [2] The applicant is the owner of Lot 9 and submits that the doors and windows at the front of the lot are in poor condition due to the age of the building and are unable to be serviced.
• [3] Two quotes for the work were considered at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 21 July 2025. The quotes were listed as 2 original motions (Motion 2.1 from Amalgamated Glass and Motion 2.2 from True Blue Glass) in a group of same-issue motions pertaining to the replacement of the doors and windows.[1]
• [4] Motion 2.1 received 2 yes votes and 3 no votes. Motion 2.2 received 5 no votes. Neither original motion in the group passed, as they did not satisfy the requirements of an ordinary resolution.[2]
• [5] The applicant wants the doors and windows at the front of Lot 9 to be replaced. The questions then are whether the body corporate is responsible for the doors and windows and, if so, whether the order sought is warranted.

• [6] The application seeks the following outcome:

Final out come to replace the glass sliding door and window as in the report from amalgamate glass stated they are unrepairable due to the age of the building.

• [7] Leinster Square community titles scheme 3973 (Leinster Square) is a 9-lot scheme at Currumbin. The community management statement (CMS) indicates the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 11618.

• [8] 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 the performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[3] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions in the Act.[4]

• [9] This application was lodged on 31 July 2025. The Commissioner sought further clarification from the applicant about the application.[5] The application was then amended.[6]
• [10] The Commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee and all owners.[7] One submission was received from the owner of Lot 4. The applicant responded to the submission.[8]
• [11] The application was referred to department adjudication.[9] I have investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and the submission.[10]

• [12] The owner of Lot 4 made a submission opposing the application. They say:
  1. The front doors of the tenancies must be maintained by owners and their tenants.
  2. The building is old and other tenancies are in similar condition.
  3. They maintain their own shopfront.
  4. No evidence has been provided that the applicant and their previous tenants have undertaken maintenance.
  5. When they acquired their lot, they sought body corporate permission to make alterations to their shopfront. They were advised by the body corporate that any works were at their own cost.

• [13] The applicant responded to the submission. Most relevantly, they say:
  1. The body corporate has not paid for maintenance or servicing of Lot 9's door or windows in 40 years. The door and windows would not have worked without being serviced.
  2. When other owners required a new door or roller doors, they were not asked for evidence of maintenance.
  3. The body corporate manager informed them that the maintenance on the outside of the building is the body corporate's responsibility.
  4. The owner of Lot 4 made major changes to the aesthetics of the front of the building. The body corporate is not responsible for such changes. If it was left in its original condition, the body corporate would have paid for maintenance issues.
  5. They are not changing the aesthetics of the building. They are requesting that the very old door and window are replaced according to the quote from a professional glass company.
  6. Their tenant is currently unable to run their business safely.

• [14] The central question in this application is whether the body corporate or the applicant is responsible for maintaining the sliding glass doors and windows situated at the front of Lot 9. This question is to be determined based on the relevant legislative provisions about maintenance, not past practices in the scheme.
• [15] If the body corporate is found to be responsible for the maintenance of the glass sliding doors and windows, I must then consider whether the course of action sought by the applicant (specifically, the replacement of the doors and windows) is warranted.

Relevant legislation about maintenance responsibilities

• [16] Leinster Square is created under a building units plan, now known as a building format plan (BFP) of subdivision. A BFP defines land using the structural elements of a building.[11] The boundary of a lot is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling where the lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall, or ceiling.[12]
• [17] The body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition, whereas an owner must maintain their lot in good condition.[13] However, under a BFP, the body corporate must also maintain some elements of scheme land that are not common property.[14]
• [18] Relevantly for this dispute, where a lot is created under a BFP, section 180(2)(a) of the Standard Module specifies that the body corporate must maintain in good condition doors, windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property.
• [19] However, the body corporate is not responsible for maintaining fixtures or fittings installed by the occupier of the lot for their own benefit.[15] Additionally, an owner is normally responsible for maintaining any improvements made to the common property for the benefit of their lot, unless excused by the body corporate.[16]

Maintenance responsibilities at Leinster Square

• [20] The applicant says that the glass sliding doors and windows are located at the front of Lot 9. After reviewing the survey plan for Leinster Square and the photograph of the front of Lot 9 submitted with the application, the doors and windows appear to be situated in an external boundary wall, separating Lot 9 from the common property. Prima facie, the body corporate is therefore responsible for maintaining the glass sliding doors and windows (and associated fittings) at the front of Lot 9 in good condition.
• [21] In their submission, the owner of Lot 4 asserts that owners and their tenants must maintain the front doors of tenancies. However, as I have outlined above, in a BFP scheme, the location of the doors and windows in question is largely determinative of whether the body corporate or an individual owner is responsible for their maintenance.
• [22] Furthermore, the submission notes that the owner of Lot 4 was required to pay for alterations to their shopfront when they acquired their lot and that they maintain their shopfront at their own cost. While past practices at Leinster Square are not determinative of maintenance responsibilities, I will make some brief comments for the information of the parties. From the limited information provided, it appears that the owner of Lot 4 may have made 'improvements' to their shopfront, rather than undertaking maintenance. The Act provides that an improvement can include the erection of a building, a structural change, or a non-structural change (such as the installation of air conditioning).[17] The body corporate is not responsible for making improvements to the common property for the benefit of an individual owner's lot.[18] Moreover, an owner would normally be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of any improvements they make to the common property, unless they are excused by the body corporate.[19]
• [23] In my view, there is nothing in the submitted material to displace the body corporate's prima facie responsibility to maintain the doors, windows and associated fittings.
• [24] Consequently, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the glass sliding doors and upper-level windows at the front of Lot 9.

Replacement of the doors and windows at the front of Lot 9

• [25] I will now turn to consider whether the glass sliding doors and windows at the front of Lot 9 have deteriorated to a degree that replacement is warranted.
• [26] The body corporate's duty to maintain an item in good condition involves ensuring an item is fit for purpose.[20] In some circumstances, repairs may be sufficient to maintain an item in good condition. However, it is well established that the statutory obligation to maintain extends to replacement in circumstances where the item has deteriorated to a degree that repairs are no longer viable.[21]
• [27] The quote from Amalgamated Glass states that the front sliding glass doors are worn and in poor condition. The quote further notes that the aluminium track has a high level of wear and corrosion and is unable to be serviced. Regarding the upper-level windows, Amalgamated Glass notes that the condition of the aluminium is poor with visible signs of corrosion and that servicing the windows is not recommended. Amalgamated Glass ultimately recommends new frame works, matching as close as possible to the original specifications.
• [28] The applicant has also provided several photos of the doors and windows in their reply to the submission and made various observations about their condition.
• [29] I am satisfied on the submitted evidence that the doors and windows at the front of Lot 9 are not currently in good condition. In view of the expert assessment from Amalgamated Glass, I am satisfied that repairing the doors and windows is no longer a viable option. In the absence of any evidence opposing replacement as the appropriate course of action, the applicant has established that the replacement of the glass sliding doors and upper-level windows at the front of Lot 9 is necessary for the body corporate to fulfill its statutory maintenance obligations.

• [30] For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the body corporate is obliged to replace the glass sliding doors and upper-level windows at the front of Lot 9. I will therefore make an order to that effect.
• [31] The quote from Amalgamated Glass received the most votes at the EGM. I consider it appropriate to direct the body corporate to engage that company to undertake the work. The original quote was valid for 30 days and so has expired, but the body corporate must engage Amalgamated Glass to undertake the work described in the quote (notwithstanding that the cost of the work may since have increased). I consider 7 days should be adequate time for the body corporate to engage Amalgamated Glass. I will not put a timeframe on the completion of the work, as that will depend on the availability of the contractor. However, the body corporate should take reasonable steps to ensure the work is completed as soon as possible.
• [32] In the grounds to the application (although not specifically listed as an order sought in the application form) the applicant also asked for the body corporate's decision at the EGM to be overturned. Based on the submission from the owner of Lot 4, it may be that Motion 2.1 did not pass due to a misapprehension about the body corporate's maintenance responsibilities in a scheme registered under a BFP. If this was in fact the reason the motion failed to pass, it could perhaps be argued that the body corporate did not act reasonably in deciding not to pass the motion.[22] But where I consider it appropriate to make an order that the body corporate engage a company to undertake the work, I do not consider that an order about the EGM motion is necessary.
• [33] The applicant has submitted additional correspondence highlighting water ingress into Lot 9 from the glass sliding doors. The body corporate should be mindful that if damage occurs to Lot 9 owing to its failure to maintain the doors and windows, the body corporate could be liable.[23] I therefore urge the body corporate to ensure that the replacement of the doors and windows is completed as soon as possible to prevent any future applications pertaining to damage.
• [34] I also note that the applicant has raised concerns about maintenance in other areas of the scheme. Although it is beyond the scope of this application for me to consider these matters, I encourage the body corporate to do its utmost to maintain the common property and other elements of scheme land that it is responsible for in good and structurally sound condition moving forward.

[2] Section 89(4) of the Standard Module

[4] Sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[11] Section 48C of the Land Title Act 1994

[12] Section 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[13] Sections 180(1) and 211(3) of the Standard Module

[14] Section 180(2) of the Standard Module

[15] Section 180(3) of the Standard Module

[16] Section 187(4) of the Standard Module

[17] Schedule 6 (Dictionary) of the Act

[18] Section 187 of the Standard Module

[19] Section 187(4) of the Standard Module

[20] MAGOG (NO. 15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for the Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 83; Surfers Century [2025] QBCCMCmr 63 at 32

[21] The Pavilion Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 470 at 28; Carmel By The Sea [2020] QBCCMCmr 559 at 32 citing Morcom and Ors v Campbell-Johnson and Ors [1955] 3 All ER 264; Surfers Century [2025] QBCCMCmr at 32