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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS to replace fence and raise special levy - whether valid.

Act, s 205, 242; Accommodation Module, ss 152, 162, 163, 220

1. The resolutions purportedly passed pursuant to Motion 9 (Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) and Motion 10 (Special Sinking Fund Levy for Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) at the annual general meeting of 23 October 2024 were at all times, void.
2. Within 7 days, the body corporate must credit the levy account of any owner who paid the special levy the subject of the invalid resolution pursuant to Motion 10 (Special Sinking Fund Levy for Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) of the annual general meeting of 23 October 2024, so that the amount owing is reduced by the amount of the special levy paid pursuant to the invalid resolution.
3. Within 7 days, and without charge to the applicant, the body corporate must supply the applicant with copies of any quotes it has received regarding the front boundary fence and/or fencing fronting Bourton Road and the café.
4. Otherwise, the application is dismissed.

• [1] Selma Hodzic, owner of lot 37 since November 2021, brings this application against the body corporate, challenging the validity of 2 motions purportedly passed at the 23 October 2024 annual general meeting (AGM): Motion 9 (Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) and motion 10 (Special Sinking Fund Levy for Boundary Fence Replacement). The applicant seeks orders that those motions be declared invalid; that any money paid pursuant to motion 10 be reimbursed; and that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) be held to reconsider motions regarding the boundary fence replacement in accordance with the legislation. The applicant also alleges the body corporate failed to comply with her request for information and seeks an order that the body corporate comply with section 205 of the Act. She also asks that the costs of making this application be borne by the body corporate.
• [2] On 31 March 2025, Adjudicator Archer made an interim order preventing the body corporate from undertaking any works to replace the front boundary fence in reliance on Motion 9, pending the final determination of this application.

• [3] Merrimac Heights was established in July 1993 with the registration of Group Titles Plan 3667. It contains 150 lots in Merrimac, on the Gold Coast.
• [4] Submissions in response to the application for final orders were sought from the committee and all owners. Submissions were received from the committee and 5 owners. The applicant inspected the submissions and provided a reply.

Section 242 Time Limit

• [5] Section 242 of the Act requires an application to declare void a resolution of the body corporate to be made within 3 months after the resolution was purportedly passed.
• [6] The resolutions challenged by the applicant were purportedly passed at the 23 October 2024 AGM. This application was lodged on 26 February 2025.
• [7] Even though the application was made outside of the section 242-time limit, I may, for good reason, waive the non-compliance.
• [8] In Kulcsar & Ors v Body Corporate for Larnaca Court CTS 10467[1], Justice Carmody said:

Relaxation of rigid time limits is a matter of discretion. It depends on whether it can be done without causing prejudice or detriment to a party. The discretion is a wide and unfettered one.

The discretion to extend time for starting a proceeding is aimed at avoiding injustice. In addition to a satisfactory explanation for the delay, to obtain a waiver, an applicant must demonstrate that an appeal is necessary to remedy a substantial injustice caused by an appealable error. Even a short delay will not be excused if the appeal would be futile and inconsistent with the due administration of justice.

• [9] There are 4 elements to consider when determining whether non-compliance with the section 242-time limit should be waived[2]:

• [10] This application was lodged on 26 February 2025, just over 4 months after the disputed resolutions and only just over 1 month outside of the 3-month time limit in section 242 of the Act. The length of delay is not overly significant.

• [11] The applicant says she is a mother of 2 young children and a social worker, so balances demanding personal and professional responsibilities. She had surgery on 2 October 2024 and did not begin returning to her regular routine until the second week of November 2024. Her family experienced gastro and flu illnesses in early January 2025, which further hindered her ability to engage with the dispute resolution process. From mid-November 2024, upon reading the 2024 AGM minutes, she made diligent efforts to understand the body corporate legislation and sought assistance from this office multiple times, including on 13 and 26 November 2024, 13 December 2024, 22 and 28 January 2025 and 5 February 2025. She only became aware of the 3-month time limit on 26 February 2025, after lodging the application, her first with this office.
• [12] The applicant also mentions that she has faced several delays in obtaining necessary documents from the body corporate and its committee. For example, on 4 December 2024, she requested copies of the quotes referenced in the meeting minutes. She was informed on 6 December 2024 that the quotes would be provided once they were part of the body corporate's records, but to date, no such documentation has been shared with the owners. Her repeated requests for clarification regarding the $46,000 fence cost also went unanswered.
• [13] The closure of the body corporate manager's office from 20 December 2014 til 13 January 2025 significantly delayed further action.
• [14] The applicant believes the outcome of this dispute is crucial for the protection of all owners' rights, financial interests and the transparency of the decisions being made.
• [15] I accept that there were legitimate reasons for the delay and note the body corporate's alleged non-compliance with section 205 of the Act (addressed separately below) as a contributing factor.

• [16] Given that motion 9 had not been implemented at the time the application was lodged and was prevented from being implemented as a result of the interim order made on 31 March 2025, I do not consider the effect of the delay significant.

• [17] Whether, apart from the delay, the applicant is entitled to the relief sought, requires a merits assessment. I will undertake a merits assessment, and in so doing, waive non-compliance with section 242.
• [18] The applicant rightly questions the validity of the resolutions purportedly passed pursuant to motions 9 and 10 of the 23 October 2024 AGM. I consider that the resolutions purportedly made were at all times void, as explained below.

• [19] Motion 9 was declared carried with 37 votes in favour, 12 against and 1 abstention, recorded as follows in the minutes:

RESOLUTION REQUIRED - ORDINARY RESOLUTION - SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE

Resolved that the Body Corporate for Merrimac Heights CTS 19563 confirms the Committee's recommendation to proceed with obtaining two (2) quotations from reliable and qualified contractors who are able and willing to complete the necessary works, and authorises the Body Corporate Committee to review and approve the most suitable quotation. Furthermore, that the Body Corporate authorises the expenditure amount of up to $46,000 inc GST plus a 15% contingency for the purpose of replacing the front timber boundary fence and that this be paid by special sinking funds.

• [20] The applicant argues motion 9 is invalid because it was unclear, did not follow legislative procedures, lacked credibility, and did not specify the details such as the location, measurements, type of fence material, or reason for replacement. Additionally, section 163 of the Accommodation Module, which requires 2 quotes to be provided for consideration for major spending at general meetings, was not complied with.
• [21] The committee submits that motion 9 authorised a project-specific increase to the committee spending limit to $52,900 for the front boundary fence replacement pursuant to section 162(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Accommodation Module.
• [22] It says motion 9's clarity is evidenced by its scope (front boundary fence), timeline (quotes post-April 2025 levy collection due to one-month validity) and limit ($46,000 plus 15% contingency, distinct from the $30,000 general limit), approved by a 74% majority (38-12-1).
• [23] Adjudicator Archer noted that it was unclear whether the owners voting on the motion were on notice whether the proposed works would replace the fence exactly as it was or if it would have a different appearance or use of materials.[3]
• [24] He noted further While the body corporate submitted the purpose of Motion 9 was to raise the committee spending limit for the purpose of the works, this was not specifically stated within the motion. It is unclear whether the owners voting on Motion 9 were on notice of this intent.[4]
• [25] I agree with the applicant and Adjudicator Archer that motion 9 was unclear at least in these respects. The wording of the motion fails to make it clear that the intention was for the motion to raise the relevant limit for committee spending to $52,900 for the purpose of replacing the front boundary fence, as submitted by the committee. The lack of clarity in other areas was borne out in submissions made by owners in response to this application.
• [26] Generally, owners feel there could be greater transparency in the decision-making process of the committee (including more clarity and detail in meeting minutes) and improved (honest and professional) communication between the committee and owners. Specifically, some complain of not having received any formal communication regarding the quotes obtained for the proposed work, the cost breakdown including what contribution, if any, is being made by the other party involved, or the rationale for selecting a particular contractor. Some owners question the priority being given to this project when other areas of the complex (shed, back fence and concrete works) in need of attention have been waiting years to be actioned. The recurring issue with the front gate is also mentioned.
• [27] One owner questions why, when the applicant made a section 205 request to get copies of the quotes referred to in the May and November 2024 committee meeting minutes, they were not provided to her.
• [28] It is evident from the minutes of the 26 March 2025 committee meeting minutes[5] that the replacement fence will be constructed of colorbond and the committee considers that motion 9 of the 23 October 2024 AGM authorised this.
• [29] The applicant believes the front fence requires maintenance and must be repaired or replaced like for like - that is, brick peers and wooden palings in between. If the fence material is changed to colorbond, it is not maintenance, but an improvement because it changes the appearance of the entire complex. She says colorbond attracts graffiti, dents easily, collects rain/debris/dirt in the bottom rung and eventually rusts.
• [30] One owner submitted that she agreed with comments made by the applicant regarding owners' negative feedback on colorbond fencing. She also asks whether the new fence will have some form of gate for the gardeners to access the 1.2m area behind the fence line and owners' properties.
• [31] I agree with the applicant that if the fencing material is changed from brick peers and wooden palings in between, to colorbond, that constitutes an improvement, rather than maintenance. Section 176 of the Accommodation Module allows improvements to common property by ordinary resolution if the cost is within the ordinary resolution improvements range ($2,000 x 152), which motion 9 is.
• [32] The broader issue is that motion 9 did not specify the materials to be used in the fence replacement and there is clearly confusion amongst owners concerning this. The March 2025 committee meeting minutes indicate that the committee has purported to unilaterally change the material of the replacement fence from timber to colorbond. This is contrary to section 176 of the Accommodation Module. Further, the committee's choice of colorbond over timber does not have the support of those owners making submissions in response to this application.
• [33] The lack of any detail about whether any adjoining landowners would be contributing anything is also of concern, given that it appears the fence is, at least partially, a dividing fence within the meaning of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011[6]. The committee submits that the shared fence is included in motion 9's scope. Cost-sharing will be negotiated before construction and will reduce owner costs, further benefiting the scheme. None of this is evident in motion, as pointed out by the applicant and some of those making submissions.
• [34] The applicant has obtained 2 quotes of her own, both dated 27 November 2024 from Affordable Fencing Gold Coast. The first is for 108m of 1800mm high butted up timber fencing on the front side of the property for $19,206; the second, for 108m of 1800mm high Rake Colorbond fencing, for $20,394. Although the committee says the length quoted is incorrect, without any detail in motion 9 as to the dimensions of the new fence, I consider that the applicant's quotes call into question the costing in motions 9 and 10.
• [35] More significantly perhaps, is the non-compliance with section 163 of the Accommodation Module's requirement for 2 quotes for major expenditure to be presented to owners at the general meeting that considers the motion.
• [36] The relevant limit for major spending[7] is $10,000 and the relevant limit for committee spending[8] was stated by the committee to be $30,000. The expenditure proposed in motion 9 significantly exceeds both.
• [37] The committee may only give effect to a proposal involving spending above the relevant limit for committee spending in certain circumstances, including if the spending is specifically authorised by ordinary resolution of the body corporate.[9] Although motion 9 purported to authorise the expenditure by ordinary resolution, no quotes were distributed with the meeting material.
• [38] When a motion proposes the carrying out of work costing more than the major spending limit, generally it must be decided at a general meeting and at least 2 quotes for the work must be obtained and included in the notice of meeting that considers the motion.[10]
• [39] The committee argues section 163 permits quote deferral under section 162(1)(a) and the quotes referred to in the November 2024 committee meeting minutes were for the motion 10 levy, to obtain a levy estimate.
• [40] There is no legal basis for this argument. It is misconceived and without substance. In my view, motion 9 is clearly invalid for failure to comply with section 163 of the Accommodation Module.

• [41] Motion 10 was carried with 34 votes in favour, 15 against and 1 abstention, recorded as follows in the minutes:

10 - Special Sinking Fund Levy for Replacement of Front Boundary Fence

RESOLUTION REQUIRED - ORDINARY RESOLUTION - SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE

Resolved that Body Corporate confirms the Committee's recommendation to proceed with raising a special Sinking Fund levy for the purpose of replacing the front boundary fence in the sum of $45,008.44 including GST payable in accordance with the following instalment which will allow Owners 6 months to pay the levy.

• [42] The applicant argues that because motion 9 is invalid, it follows that motion 10 is invalid since it attempts to raise a special levy based on motion 9. I agree.
• [43] Section 152 of the Accommodation Module provides that if a liability arises, for which no provision, or inadequate provision, has been made in the budget, the body corporate must, by ordinary resolution, fix a special contribution to be levied on each owner towards the liability.
• [44] The section in no way negates the body corporate's responsibility under section 150 of the Accommodation Module, to set a sinking fund budget and it cannot simply rely on a 'special levy' as an alternative method for providing for major expenditure within a scheme. The fence's poor condition was noted in the committee meeting minutes of 29 November 2023. There is no explanation for why the proposed expenditure was not included in the sinking fund budget considered and approved at the same AGM the special levy was attempted to be struck.
• [45] The committee says standard budgeting practice involves funds being secured before procuring quotes to ensure financial certainty and that section 152(2) requires no quotes. Whilst the committee may have ideas as to what action it wants to take and may have some basis for calculating the special levy sought to be raised by motion 10, this information was not before owners voting at the AGM and has not been provided to me.
• [46] I reject the committee's assertion that motion 10's validity is independent of motion 9, as budgeting and spending are distinct processes, citing Peninsula[11]. The committee also cites Peninsula as authority for the proposition that sinking fund monies can be applied to authorised, non-budgeted expenditures pending receipt of a special levy, and that there is no legislative requirement to tie levies to specific spending approvals[12].
• [47] The committee fails to point out that the major expenditure the subject of the decision in Peninsula (balustrade replacement in a scheme of 246 lots) was found to have been properly authorised by the body corporate[13], unlike here.
• [48] That the fence needs replacing is not disputed. However, the fence's poor condition does not create a liability. In my view, no liability to replace the fence can arise until the body corporate has properly authorised the work. It has not properly authorised the work. Motion 9 is invalid. It follows that motion 10 is also invalid.

• [49] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate reimburse all owners who have paid the special levy pursuant to motion 10.
• [50] The committee submits that refunding the levy would be impractical. Distributing refunds to 150 lot owners, only to potentially reissue a levy for the same liability, incurs unnecessary costs and delays and constitutes an administrative burden. It says the fence replacement remains necessary, and funds must be secured. Refunding would require a new levy, duplicating efforts and burdening owners. There is no evidence of financial hardship caused by the levy's financial impact ($290.81-$335.55 per lot).
• [51] I agree that refunding the special levy at this stage would be impractical. However, I see no reason why it cannot be credited to the levy account of each owner who paid it, as suggested by the applicant. I have ordered accordingly.

• [52] Given my decision that motions 9 and 10 are invalid, it will be necessary for the body corporate to properly authorise expenditure on the front boundary fence replacement in accordance with the legislation, before proceeding with the work. This will require properly drafted motions being put before owners in general meeting, to be decided by ordinary resolution, in accordance with the legislation.
• [53] However, I decline to order the body corporate to convene an EGM specifically for this purpose for the following reasons. Firstly, the body corporate's end of financial year is 31 July, meaning it is required to hold its AGM by the end of October 2025. There is no reason why motions submitted by owners before 31 July 2025 and by the committee, regarding the front boundary fence replacement, cannot be considered at the AGM (assuming it has not already been held). If appropriate motions are not considered and passed at the AGM, the body corporate can convene an EGM for the specific purpose of considering replacement of the front boundary fence. Owners can also requisition an EGM by giving a notice, signed by or for the owners of at least 25% of all the lots in the scheme, to the secretary requesting an EGM, to consider and decide motions proposed in the notice. A requested EGM must be called within 14 days after the notice is given and held within 6 weeks after the notice is given[14].
• [54] I note that the applicant's February 2025 request for an EGM was not granted. The committee submits it refused on the basis that it was not supported by at least 25% of all the lot owners. The applicant says she was never advised that her request was being refused on this basis. Had the committee advised of the requirement for 25% owner support, the applicant says she would have taken steps to obtain support from other owners.
• [55] The only reply the applicant received was the body corporate manger's email of 11 February 2025 which stated "Hi Selma, No works have taken place and will not take place until quotes have been received and reviewed to determine the next course of action."
• [56] I agree with the applicant that this reply was vague, non-committal and lacked any procedural clarity.
• [57] The committee submits that the EGM request was reasonably rejected given motion 9's strong support and the interim order's protections. The applicant points out that the interim order hadn't been made at the time she made her request for an EGM in February 2025.
• [58] The committee may have misunderstood the effect of the interim order, which prohibits the body corporate from undertaking any works to replace the front boundary fence in reliance on motion 9, until the application for final orders is determined. At the interim stage of proceedings, the adjudicator found there was a serious question about the validity of the motion. He specifically stated that the interim order did not prevent the body corporate from putting further motions to another general meeting.[15] It appears the body corporate has not availed itself of the opportunity to do so, despite the applicant specifically requesting it and the interim adjudicator specifically mentioning it.
• [59] A further general meeting is necessary in order to properly authorise (and if necessary, fund) in accordance with the legislation, the replacement of the front fence.

• [60] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that, within seven days after receiving a written request from an interested person, accompanied by the prescribed fee, the body corporate must do either or both of the following, as requested by the interested person:

(a) permit the person to inspect the body corporate's records;

(b) give the person a copy of a record kept by the body corporate.

• [61] The applicant, as registered owner of lot 37, is an interested person.[16]
• [62] 'Records' are defined to mean "...for a body corporate, the rolls, registers and other documents kept by the body corporate under this Act (including under the regulation module applying to the scheme)." [17]
• [63] Section 220 of the Accommodation Module governs the keeping and disposal of records and lists records a body corporate must keep. Included at subsection (1)(h) is 'all correspondence received by the body corporate, and correspondence sent by the body corporate'. Subsection (1)(i) refers to 'all minutes of the committee and all associated committee meeting material'. Subsection (1)(j) refers to 'all minutes of general meetings of the body corporate, and all associated general meeting material'.
• [64] The records listed in section 220 are not the only ones a body corporate can keep. If a body corporate has retained material beyond that which it must keep, it will be included within the records that must be available.
• [65] A document becomes a body corporate record when it is created or received by or on behalf of the body corporate. This will include information stored or recorded on computer.
• [66] There is no legislative limit on the scope and content of records that may be accessed, except for material reasonably believed to be defamatory or subject to legal professional privilege. There is no indication in this application that the information sought by the applicant is subject to legal professional privilege or believed to be defamatory, which might constitute a basis for withholding access to the records.
• [67] A body corporate is only required to give access to existing documents that it holds at the time of a request. If a requested record was not created, received or retained by the body corporate (even if it should have been), the body corporate cannot provide access to it. The body corporate is not required to create a document, extract information from other documents,

answer questions, or source information to satisfy a request for records. Moreover, if there is a need to interrogate the records to identify information a person wishes to know (or the absence

of that information), it will be a matter for the person to review the records themselves.

• [68] Where a person seeks copies of records, the requirement on the body corporate to supply copies is limited to those documents that are reasonably identifiable in the request (such as the roll, invoices from a particular contractor, correspondence between particular dates, and so on). The body corporate is not expected to search through a large volume of records to identify documents that might fall within the scope of a broad, vague or general request for information.
• [69] I will consider now whether the documents requested by the applicant fall within the scope of section 205, and whether there is any basis to withhold disclosure.
• [70] In an email on 4 December 2024 the applicant formally requested the copies of the two quotes associated with Motion 9 from the Merrimac Heights AGM held in October 2024.... There are available funds in my levy account to cover the costs associated with obtaining the copies of the quotes.
• [71] An email reply from Shayne John, body corporate manager, on 6 December 2024 says Once the relevant quotations form part of the Body Corporates records they will be provided to all Owners.
• [72] In her reply email on the same date, the applicant says in the latest minutes[18], under the Caretakers Report, it clearly states that 3 quotes have been obtained for the fence.... once the quotes are obtain (sic) they form part of the Body Corporate record and therefore are required to be provided under Section 205 of BCCM Act. I am requesting an explanation from the committee on what basis did they determine the cost of the front fence on Bourton Road to be $46,000?
• [73] The applicant says she received no reply to her second email and that the silence reinforces the committee's non-compliance and disregard for its statutory obligations.
• [74] The committee says it complied with section 205 by withholding irrelevant motion 10 levy estimation quotes (which had not been formally requested). It says the applicant does not provide evidence of a specific written request for fence-related documents or a refusal by the body corporate.
• [75] The body corporate says it obtained preliminary quotes to estimate the motion 10 levy, but these do not reflect the actual cost of the work to be performed under motion 9. These quotes, the committee says, cover different work, were irrelevant to a request for motion 9 quotes and were appropriately withheld, as section 205 does not require disclosure of non-responsive documents.
• [76] The applicant says the committee cannot assert that the quotes are sufficient to estimate a special levy but simultaneously argue they are irrelevant to the very works being funded. This is a contradictory and misleading justification for a failure to comply with the Act. I agree.
• [77] In my view, the committee's rationale for refusing to supply the applicant with the quotes it obtained, it says, for the purposes of estimating the amount of the motion 10 special levy, because they were irrelevant to the cost of the work to be performed under motion 9, is farcical and only strengthens the arguments for both motions 9 and 10 being invalid.
• [78] The applicant made a proper request under section 205 for documents that were body corporate records, in its possession, that were sufficiently identifiable. The body corporate wrongly refused that request.
• [79] I will make an order that the body corporate supply the applicant with copies of any quotes it has regarding the fencing fronting Bourton Road and the café. This would include, at a minimum, the 2 quotes for $38,766 and $31,971 referenced in the May 2024 committee meeting minutes under Caretakers Report, Item 4(i) and the 3 quotes referred to in the Caretakers Report under Item 4 Fencing Fronting Bourton Road and the Café, referenced in the minutes of the committee meeting held on 27 November 2024 (all of which were clearly in its possession when the applicant made her request on 4 December 2024 and clarified on 6 December 2024) plus the quotes referred to in the Caretakers Report under Item 5 Fencing Fronting Bourton Road and the Café, referenced in the minutes of the committee meeting held on 26 March 2025.
• [80] Although a fee is payable for the provision of copies under section 222(1)(b) of the Accommodation Module of 0.65 fee units for each page[19] supplied, I consider it just and equitable to order the body corporate to supply the applicant with the records without payment of a fee, given its unjustified non-compliance with section 205 of the Act, the fact that many months have passed since the request was made and the applicant had to go to the trouble and expense of lodging this application in order to get the copies.

• [81] The applicant requests that, given the body corporate's repeated non-compliance with the legislative requirements that have necessitated this application, it should bear the adjudication costs.
• [82] An adjudicator may order costs of a nature and for reasons mentioned in section 270(3) and 280 of the Act. There is no power for an adjudicator to order the reimbursement of application fees in the circumstances of this application.
• [83] Unfortunately, I am unable to make an order that the body corporate reimburse the applicant the costs of lodging this application.

• [84] For the reasons outlined above, I find that the resolutions purportedly passed pursuant to Motions 9 (Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) and Motion 10 (Special Sinking Fund Levy for Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) at the annual general meeting of 23 October 2024 were at all times, void. The body corporate is required to credit the levy account of any owner who paid the special levy the subject of the invalid resolution pursuant to Motion 10 (Special Sinking Fund Levy for Replacement of Front Boundary Fence) of the annual general meeting of 23 October 2024, so that the amount owing is reduced by the amount of the special levy paid pursuant to the invalid resolution.
• [85] I find further that the applicant made a proper request under section 205 of the Act for documents that were sufficiently identifiable body corporate records, in its possession. The body corporate wrongly refused that request. The body corporate must now supply the applicant, at no cost to her, with copies of any quotes it has regarding the fencing fronting Bourton Road and the café. This would include, at a minimum, the 2 quotes for $38,766 and $31,971 referenced in the May 2024 committee meeting minutes under Caretakers Report, Item 4(i) and the 3 quotes referred to in the Caretakers Report under Item 4 Fencing Fronting Bourton Road and the Café, referenced in the minutes of the committee meeting held on 27 November 2024 (all of which were clearly in its possession when the applicant made her request on 4 December 2024 and clarified on 6 December 2024) plus the quotes referred to in the Caretakers Report under Item 5 Fencing Fronting Bourton Road and the Café, referenced in the minutes of the committee meeting held on 26 March 2025.
• [86] These orders leave the work involved in the replacement of the front boundary fence/fencing fronting Bourton Road and the Café, unauthorised and unfunded. The body corporate will need to consider appropriate motions in general meeting to properly authorise and fund the work, in accordance with the legislation. In doing so, it may wish to avail itself of resources available from this Office to ensure previous mistakes are not repeated.

[1] [2016] QCATA 47

[2] Weeks v Commissioner for Body Corporate, Maroochydore District Court Appeal 13/99, 20 September 1999, unreported

[3] Merrimac Heights [2025] QBCCMCmr 111 @ [27]

[4] Merrimac Heights [2025] QBCCMCmr 111 @ [28]

[5] See Item 5. FENCING FRONTING BOURTON ROAD AND THE CAFÉ

[7] See definition of relevant limit for major spending in Schedule 1, Accommodation Module

[8] See definition of relevant limit for committee spending in Schedule 1, Accommodation Module

[9] Section 162(1)(a), Accommodation Module

[11] [2011] QBCCMCmr 247

[12] [2011] QBCCMCmr 247 @ [24]

[13] [2011] QBCCMCmr 247 @ [19]

[15] Merrimac Heights [2025] QBCCMCmr 111 @ [57]

[18] Referring to the committee meeting minutes from November 2024