Long Pier [2025] QBCCMCmr 276 (13 August 2025)

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

1. The Body Corporate for Long Pier CTS 56497 ('Body Corporate') shall take no further steps - including through its members, committee, agents, builders and/or contractors - to progress the works associated with the relocation of the electrical distribution board or switchboard at the scheme to the area marked as '1A' in the Community Management Statement and allocated to Lot 1 for exclusive use, until further or final order or until the written consent of the owners of Lot 1 for the said relocation are provided.
2. For the avoidance of doubt, Order 1 above does not preclude the Body Corporate from relocating the said electrical distribution board or switchboard to another suitable location on scheme land, in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
3. This application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] The scheme comprises eight lots and common property, and is regulated under the Standard Module.
• [2] The scheme building contains two levels, labelled alphabetically. Both Levels A and B contain common property and parts of all eight lots. Two specific areas of common property have been allocated to Lots 1 and 8 for exclusive use as a courtyard or garden, labelled '1A' and '8A' respectively.
• [3] Area 1A has a total area of 44m², underneath which runs water and stormwater pipes for the scheme.
• [4] The applicants are co-owners of Lot 1 and the respondent is the body corporate.
• [5] The applicants state that shortly after purchasing and tenanting Lot 1, the occupiers of Lot 1 reported unusually high electricity bills, prompting investigation. The applicants having engaged an independent electrician to assess the matter reportedly discovered multiple issues as follows:
  1. The electrical power supply for Lot 4 was connected to Lot 1's wiring;
  2. The electrical power supply for the scheme's common property was connected to Lot 6's wiring;
  3. The switchboard cannot be locked and is exposed to vehicular access, with previously installed bollards having been removed.
• [6] The applicants state that subsequently they discovered that their electricity distributor ('Ergon') had issued a defect notice on 21 June 2024 stating as follows:

Switchboard location not compliant with QECM U3 6.9.9 (D) (L)

*Area is not [accessible] and [adequately] protected.

• [7] The applicants complain that the respondent body corporate did not take immediate or proactive steps to resolve the matter. They state that as a result, they took it upon themselves to progress the matter, by liaising with Ergon, contacting various electricians, gathering evidence and communicating with other owners.
• [8] The applicants state that the original building contractor ('Builder') eventually acknowledged the defect, which resulted from its non-compliant installation during construction, and immediately pushed for a resolution that would involve placing the new switchboard within Area 1A. The applicants state that the Builder chose Area 1A for the relocation without considering the best interests of the scheme, and because it is the most convenient for itself.
• [9] The applicants state that given their experience with the Builder as described above, they were unwilling to rely solely on its guidance and motives. However, the applicants state that the committee appeared inclined to accept the Builder's proposed solution involving Area 1A, seemingly because it minimised impact on other owners, regardless of the significant effect on Lot 1.
• [10] It appears that in or around December 2024 or January 2025, the committee voted on the relocation of the switchboard to Area 1A, but was unable to achieve a majority vote. Copies of a correspondence trail indicates that the Builder has been waiting for a body corporate decision regarding the relocation since October 2024 in order to remedy the defect.
• [11] In these circumstances, the applicants state an Extraordinary General Meeting ('EGM') was convened in February 2025 to address the relocation of the switchboard. They state that prior to the EGM, they tabled two relevant motions which the committee declined to include. They state that the issue was discussed extensively at the EGM and it was agreed that independent professional advice would be sought and that no work would proceed until detailed and scaled site plans were provided. (I have not been provided with the relevant EGM minutes.)
• [12] Subsequently, the applicants state that an independent electrical contractor ('Watkins') was engaged to provide advice on the issue. They state that pursuant to a site visit in or around April or May 2025, Watkins advised that a practical and less intrusive alternative would be to install the new switchboard in the northwest corner of the scheme, at the original point of power entry as per drawings in the Community Management Statement ('CMS'). Watkins purportedly explained that this new location (the 'Northwest Corner Spot') already contains a pit or service access point suitable for electrical infrastructure, and would allow conduit to run underneath an existing garden bed. The applicants add that this Northwest Corner Spot would be of minimal inconvenience to any individual lot owner given it abuts a communal bin enclosure. Furthermore, the applicants indicate that the solution proposed by Watkins would avoid disrupting any lots or exclusive use areas; maintain consistency with the original power layout for the scheme; allow clear access for maintenance and emergency work; be visually unobtrusive given the existing infrastructure; and would preserve the value of Lot 1.
• [13] On 16 July 2025, the applicants received correspondence from the respondent body corporate indicating its intention to proceed with the Builder's proposal. This correspondence stated as follows:

We write to you to provide an update on the relocation of the meter board at Long Pier, in order to resolve the defect notice issued on the board by Ergon. Thank you to Mark who was able to receive a copy of the defect notice, which confirmed that the defect was the location of the board.

We have been advised that Steve [] from [the Builder] will be on site this week to confirm the scope of work for relocation of the meter board to the fence opposite Unit 1, with the access to the board to be on Hibiscus Street. The body corporate did seek a [sic] alternate proposal from Watkins Electrical, however after review of the scope of works provided, the majority view of the body corporate committee was that the disruption that would be caused to all residents would not be acceptable.

We will provide further updates once we have a timeline for the work from [the Builder].

• [14] The same day the respondent body corporate advised the applicants that it decided to proceed with the Builder's proposal as opposed to the Watkins proposal. This is because a connections team from Ergon purportedly advised the committee that they could not guarantee that the Watkins proposal would resolve the defect notice.
• [15] I also note that by way of email dated 20 January 2025, the Builder advised the second applicant that her preferred location (what appears to be the Northwest Corner Spot) is unsuitable given it does not comply with 'Ergon's requirements of clear 600mm access as a bollard will be required in the driveway which will breach town planning guidelines'.
• [16] The applicants state that the respondent body corporate opted for the Builder's proposal despite its poor compliance history; the respondent body corporate's undertaking that the works would not proceed in the absence of detailed plans for the same first being provided; the availability of a feasible, non-intrusive alternative as proposed by Watkins; and the fact that the second applicant is a committee member who has to date not been provided with the Watkins report nor included in these decisions.
• [17] They add that this raises serious concerns with respect to procedural fairness and a potential breach of the 'Code of Conduct for Committee Voting Members' under Schedule 1A of the Act. The applicants also allege that full and accurate minutes of this decision has not been recorded.
• [18] The applicants state that if an independent professional were to conclude that the most viable option for the relocation is Area 1A, they would be prepared to accept the same. However, they argue that currently the decision to relocate the switchboard to Area 1A is not based on sound, impartial logic and is merely on the basis of convenience and cost efficiency for the Builder.
• [19] The applicants state that the respondent body corporate indicated that the encroachment into Area 1A is 'approximately 300mm'. They complain that the respondent body corporate has not provided any site plans and specifications confirming the height, width and exact positioning of the proposed installation.
• [20] The applicants state that they objected to the proposed installation, and requested immediate cessation of the works; and for them to be provided with all site plans, engineering advice and relevant correspondence; and most importantly confirmation that no works would proceed without their express written consent.
• [21] In these circumstances, the applicants seek the following final orders (to be determined at a later stage):

That the body corporate for Long Pier [] be ordered to:

Refrain from carrying out or approving any works to relocate the electrical distribution board into the Exclusive Use Area of Lot 1 unless and until:

(a) Professional drawn, to-scale site plans clearly showing the proposed location and dimensions of the works;

(b) All supporting engineering or technical assessments used to justify the proposed location;

(c) A full copy of the alternative proposal provided by Watkins Electrical in or around May/June 2025;

(d) Records of committee deliberation, decision-making, and related correspondence for both proposals; and

(2) The applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to review this material and either:

(a) Provide express written consent to the proposed location; or

(b) Have any objection resolved through the dispute resolution process under the [Act].

• [22] Further, the applicants seek the following interim order (which is the subject of this decision):

That the body corporate for Long Pier [] be ordered to immediately cease all physical works or implementation decisions relating to the proposed relocation of the electrical distribution board into the exclusive use area of Lot 1 until such time as the dispute outlined here is resolved by conciliation or Final Order.

• [23] The applicants also indicate that they seek:
  1. A determination as to whether the Builder's proposed location is appropriate given its role in the original non-compliant installation and the resulting impact on Lot 1;
  2. Consideration of the Watkins proposal;
  3. As assessment as to whether the respondent body corporate and the body corporate manager have complied with the Act, particularly in relation to transparency, decision-making and record-keeping; and
  4. Clarification on whether any encroachment into Area 1A should give rise to compensation or other remedies in light of the fact that the monetary consideration for the applicants' purchase of Lot 1 included a component for the exclusive use rights to Area 1A, and the reduction in the amenity and value of Lot 1 if the encroachment occurs.

• [24] 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[1] or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[2] Further, an order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting in a manner stated.[3] An order may also contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate. [4]
• [25] I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to determine the dispute in question by virtue of sections 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act (read together with section 227(1)(b) of the Act).

• [26] This application for interim orders was lodged on 24 July 2025.
• [27] Subsequently, the Commissioner sought further information under section 240 of the Act.
• [28] On 28 July 2025, the applicants provided the information sought.
• [29] On 30 July 2025, the Commissioner referred the interim order application for department adjudication in accordance with section 247 of the Act.
• [30] The same day, I instructed my delegate to contact the body corporate manager or a committee member and inform them of the application lodged, the interim and final orders sought, and to advise them that I wish to provide the committee with an opportunity to make a submission on the interim orders sought - provided the respondent body corporate can furnish a written undertaking that it will refrain from taking the action the interim orders seek to prevent.
• [31] On 1 August 2025, an undertaking was furnished confirming that 'the committee would not take any further action in relation to the works forming the basis of this application'.
• [32] I, relying on this undertaking, invited the committee to make a submission.
• [33] On 10 August 2025, the first applicant wrote to our Office indicating that on 8 August 2025 the body corporate manager had emailed the committee members highlighting that the Builder would be proceeding with the works notwithstanding the undertaking provided to me on 1 August 2025.
• [34] On 12 August 2025, on my instructions, my delegate contacted the body corporate manager and the chairperson of the committee, seeking further confirmation that the respondent body corporate would honour the undertaking provided and not allow the works to progress.
• [35] The body corporate manager indicated that the Builder was progressing with the works of his own volition and not on the instructions of the respondent body corporate. Further, she was unable to indicate when the works would commence, reiterating that it was the Builder and not the respondent body corporate who would be commencing the works. Neither the body corporate manager nor the chairperson confirmed that the undertaking would be complied with.
• [36] Accordingly, on the same day, I wrote to all parties indicating that I withdraw the invitation to the committee to make a submission, and that I would proceed to determine the application for interim orders without a submission.
• [37] Regardless, the same day the chairperson wrote to our Office to indicate that the committee would not be making a submission.

• [38] An adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[5] Accordingly, an applicant must satisfy the adjudicator that serious or irreparable damage would be caused without the interim order.
• [39] An interim order is usually made in the form of a temporary injunction - an order not to do something, pending a final determination of an application. It has effect for a period stated in the order, not to be longer than one year, and may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made, and otherwise lapses when an application is finally determined or withdrawn.[6]
• [40] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interlocutory injunction applications.[7] The first issue is whether the applicant has made out a 'prima facie case' or raised a 'serious legal question', in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is some probability that the applicant will succeed at the final determination stage. The second issue is whether any inconvenience or injury which the applicant would be likely to suffer if an interim order were refused outweighs or is outweighed by any inconvenience or injury which the respondent would suffer if an interim order were granted. Those two issues of serious legal question and balance of convenience are parts of one ultimate question - whether an interim order is warranted - and therefore should not be addressed mechanically or in isolation from one another.
• [41] The questions of law and fact raised by the application do not need to be finally decided at the interim order determination stage, and doing so is not appropriate where the evidence is potentially incomplete, or questions of law require opposing arguments and unhurried consideration. That said, if the answer to a question of fact or law is clear on the evidence and issues as presented in the interim application, it may be appropriate and beneficial to decide such questions at the interlocutory stage.[8]
• [42] Even if the considerations of urgency or balance of convenience favour the applicant, it is not inappropriate for an interim order application to be dismissed if there is little or no prospect of success on the legal arguments and the uncontroversial facts, at the final determination stage.

• [43] Accordingly, the only issue for determination at present is whether an interim order is warranted.

• [44] There is sufficient evidence that the relocation works will occur without any further authorisation by the respondent body corporate or consent by any person. The question at this stage is if the works are imminent, warranting an interim order.
• [45] While I understand that the Builder may have been issued a notice to rectify the defectively installed switchboard perhaps within a specified period of time, it would be unlawful for it to enter scheme land and carry out works in circumstances where the respondent body corporate has specifically instructed it to cease works until this application is determined. Furthermore, for the respondent body corporate to seemingly maintain that the progressing of the works is out of its hands is untenable, because it is the body corporate that remains responsible for its common property utility infrastructure.
• [46] The rather limited evidence at this stage indicates on the balance of probabilities that the respondent body corporate has either relinquished control over the relocation of the switchboard to the Builder, or that it is plainly allowing the Builder to carry out the works.
• [47] There is also evidence of some degree of disharmony between the committee and the body corporate manager. In particular, the chairperson notes in an email dated 14 July 2025, that the body corporate manager had issued a letter to the Builder advising it to proceed with the works, seemingly without committee instructions.
• [48] At this stage, there is a great deal of hostility and uncertainty as to when the works will occur, so much so that I am unsure whether something as rudimentary as the statutory notice period under section 163(2) of the Act will be provided to the applicants prior to the commencement of the works within Area 1A.
• [49] Furthermore, there is greater uncertainty as to how the works will occur. It appears that neither the respondent body corporate nor the applicant have been provided with any plans as to the relocation, identifying precisely where the switchboard will be positioned, and how the same will be accessible.
• [50] In these circumstances and to this extent, I am satisfied that the nature of the circumstances warrant the interim order sought.

• [51] I am satisfied that the applicants have raised a serious legal question as to the reasonableness of the decision to relocate the switchboard to Area 1A under section 94(2) of the Act. I appreciate that the respondent body corporate wishes to ensure compliance with Ergon's requirements and other relevant laws and regulations; and that whilst the Builder's proposal supposedly ensures compliance with the same, it is purportedly unclear whether the Watkins proposal does. Even if the decision is reasonable on the basis that there are no suitable alternative locations other than within Area 1A, there is a question as to whether the applicants are entitled to any consideration for forfeiting their exclusive use rights with respect to the area to be taken up by the switchboard.
• [52] There is also a serious legal question as to whether the correct level of authorisation and any required consent has been obtained for the said relocation. The requires unhurried consideration of the facts of the proposed relocation of the switchboard against various statutory provisions including but not limited to sections 171 and 177 of the Act.

• [53] The applicants claim that the works would cause irreparable physical changes to the property, and materially diminish the value and utility of their lot, overriding their rights without proper consultation or documentation. They add that the absence of formal plans, clear rationale, or consideration of less intrusive alternatives compounds the risk of irreversible harm.
• [54] Based on the limited evidence before me, I cannot hold that the works will cause irreparable damage, given as stated above, no detailed plans have been provided to ascertain any level of damage. However, I am satisfied based on the nature of the proposed relocation alone that reversing the works would be expensive for the respondent body corporate - a cost that will have to be shared by the owners of all eight lots. This may well be a significant cost for each owner in this context.
• [55] On the other hand, I am aware that the Builder is required to relocate the switchboard, but I have no evidence of any timeframe within which this must be carried out. Regardless, the Builder has seemingly provided no detailed plans for the works to date.
• [56] Considering these factors, I am of the view that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo. Accordingly, I shall grant the interim order sought.

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

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

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

[7] For general principles see for e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[8] Cohen v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 70 at [6]