Mihi Grove [2025] QBCCMCmr 171 (22 May 2025)

In such circumstances, the legislation allows for a body corporate to propose an alternative insurance arrangement, and for an adjudicator to make an alternative insurance order to approve the body corporate to put it in place.

The body corporate seeks an order to have the Council's own insurance approved as alternative insurance, but that insurance does not in any way conform with the body corporate's required insurance.

The question for determination is whether an alternative insurance order can be made in those circumstances.

The application for an alternative insurance order is dismissed.

• [1] This application concerns body corporate insurance obligations under the legislation, and what a body corporate may do if it cannot get fully-compliant insurance.
• [2] Mihi Grove CTS 19470 is a community titles scheme of 43 lots and common property located in Brassall.
• [3] Mihi Grove was inundated in the February 2022 south-east Queensland floods. The 42 townhouses[1] that make up the scheme were subsequently assessed as being eligible for the government's Voluntary Home Buy-Back Program.[2]
• [4] Ipswich City Council (ICC) is the local government body for the area. I am told that ICC's participation in the Program requires it to purchase properties that are identified as eligible for the Program. I am also told that the acquisition process is well underway, to the extent that the ICC owns all but 2 of the lots, and that ICC ultimately proposes to terminate the scheme and demolish the buildings, once all lots are acquired.
• [5] Until it is terminated, Mihi Grove continues to be subject to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act) and, as specified in its CMS, the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module).
• [6] The legislation and regulation modules require bodies corporate to have full replacement value insurance for certain buildings. However, as the BCCM Act recognises, some bodies corporate cannot get insurance to that extent, or at all. This is unfortunately a common problem, especially for schemes in the northern part of Queensland, likely because of the higher incidence of destructive weather events there.[3]
• [7] Section 189 of the BCCM Act provides that, in such a case, the body corporate may apply for an adjudicator's order approving it to put in place an alternative insurance proposal (alternative insurance order). That is the purpose of this application.
• [8] The applicant says it has tried (through ICC officers) to obtain insurance coverage for the body corporate, through the insurer for local governments, insurance brokers and individual firms. It says all have declined to offer coverage. It also says that, to the extent possible, it will instead call upon the ICC's own insurance, and it offers that as the alternative insurance proposal for approval.
• [9] As this is the first decision to be made under the new alternative insurance provisions, I have set out at length some background to the legislative changes, the relevant provisions, and what I consider to be the implications of those provisions.

• [10] Until recently, applications to approve alternative insurance were decided by the Commissioner, acting in an administrative capacity.
• [11] Arrangements for alternative insurance changed with the passing of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld), which amended the BCCM Act. The following are the main amendments:
  1. Section 189 of the BCCM Act was amended to provide that if a body corporate cannot comply with the requirement under the relevant regulation module to insure particular buildings for full replacement value, the body corporate may make an adjudication application for an alternative insurance order. The amendment also has the effect of extending the ability to apply for approval of alternative insurance to buildings on lots created under a standard format plan of subdivision that have a common wall with a building on an adjoining lot, which was not captured under the previous Commissioner approval process.
  2. New section 281A was inserted into the BCCM Act. It applies if a body corporate makes an adjudication application for an alternative insurance order, and sets out criteria and guidance for the adjudicator in deciding the application.
  3. Schedule 5 of the BCCM Act, which list orders an adjudicator may make, was amended to include item 3A for an order approving alternative insurance to be put in place by a body corporate.
• [12] To support those changes, the following amendments were also made:
  1. Section 190 of the BCCM Act was amended to clarify that a body corporate also has an insurable interest for the purpose of insurance put in place under an alternative insurance order.
  2. Section 227 of the BCCM Act was amended to provide at subsection (4) that an adjudication application made by a body corporate for an alternative insurance order is also a 'dispute', to bring the matter within an adjudicator's jurisdiction.
  3. Section 238 of the BCCM Act was amended to provide that the usual requirement to make reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute by internal dispute resolution does not apply to a an alternative insurance order application.
  4. New section 239BA was inserted into the BCCM Act to outline information the approved form to apply for an order approving alternative insurance must require the applicant to provide. This information includes details of the alternative insurance the applicant proposes to put in place and the grounds on which the application is made. BCCM Form 24 is that new form.
  5. Section 243 of the BCCM Act was amended to provide that the requirement for the Commissioner to give written notice of an application to certain persons is subject to new section 243B. New section 243B was inserted into the BCCM Act to provide that the Commissioner may immediately refer an adjudication application for an alternative insurance order to an adjudicator without giving written notice of the application under section 243(1) BCCM Act.

• [13] A body corporate must insure certain things, as specified in the regulation module applicable to the scheme. Essentially, it must seek full replacement value insurance for buildings on scheme land which owners and occupiers could not reasonably be expected to individually insure - for present purposes, I will call that the 'required insurance'. For this scheme, the Accommodation Module applies.[4]
• [14] For a scheme with lots created under a building format plan of subdivision or a volumetric format plan of subdivision, section 188 Accommodation Module provides:

(1) This section applies if 1 or more of the lots included in the community titles scheme are created under a building format plan of subdivision or a volumetric format plan of subdivision.

(2) The body corporate must insure, for full replacement value, each building in which is located a lot included in the scheme, to the extent that the building is scheme land.

(3) A policy of insurance taken out under this section -

(ii) costs incidental to the reinstatement or replacement of insured buildings, including the cost of taking away debris and the fees of architects and other professional advisers; and

(b) must provide for the reinstatement of property to its condition when new.

(4) The body corporate is liable to pay any contribution that has to be made to the cost of reinstatement or repair because the reinstatement insurance is not for the full replacement value of the insured property.

(5) The body corporate need not insure a building or a part of a building under subsection (2) if -

(a) the scheme is a subsidiary scheme for another community titles scheme (the "other scheme" ); and

(b) under subsection (2) , or an equivalent provision of another regulation module, the body corporate for the other scheme is required to insure the building or the part of the building.

(6) Also, the body corporate need not insure a building or a part of a building under subsection (2) if -

(a) the building or the part of the building is scheme land; and

(b) the whole of the building is the subject of a building management statement registered under the Land Title Act 1994; and

(c) the building management statement provides for insurance for the building to a level comparable with insurance otherwise required under this part; and

(7) This section applies subject to provisions of this part about insurance of buildings mutually dependent for support on a common wall.

• [15] In summary, section 188 Accommodation Module:
  1. applies to a scheme created under a building format plan of subdivision or a volumetric format plan of subdivision
  2. requires a body corporate to insure, for full replacement value, each building in which a lot is located
  3. requires the insurance to cover damage and costs incidental to the reinstatement or replacement of insured buildings, to new condition
  4. provides that the body corporate is liable to make up any shortfall where insurance is not for full replacement value, and
  5. provides that a body corporate need not obtain insurance if it is a subsidiary of another body corporate which is required to insure the building, or where there is comparable insurance in place for the building under a registered building management statement.
• [16] For a scheme with lots created under a standard format plan of subdivision, section 189 of the Accommodation Module applies:

(a) 1 or more of the lots included in the community titles scheme are created under a standard format plan of subdivision; and

(b) in 1 or more cases, a building on 1 lot has a common wall with a building on an adjoining lot.

(2) The body corporate must insure, for full replacement value, each building mentioned in subsection (1) (b) .

(3) A policy of insurance taken out under this section -

(ii) costs incidental to the reinstatement or replacement of the buildings, including the cost of taking away debris and the fees of architects and other professional advisers; and

(b) must provide for the reinstatement of the buildings to their condition when new; and

(c) may give effect, in whole or part, to a voluntary insurance scheme.

(4) The body corporate is liable to pay any contribution that has to be made to the cost of reinstatement or repair because the reinstatement insurance is not for the full replacement value of the insured property.

(5) The body corporate need not insure a building or a part of a building under subsection (2) if -

(a) the scheme is a subsidiary scheme for another community titles scheme (the "other scheme" ); and

(b) under subsection (2) , or an equivalent provision of another regulation module, the body corporate for the other scheme is required to insure the building or the part of the building.

• [17] In summary, section 189 Accommodation Module:
  1. applies to a standard format plan scheme where a building on a lot has a common wall with a building on an adjoining lot
  2. requires the body corporate to insure each such building for full replacement value
  3. requires the insurance to cover damage and costs incidental to the reinstatement or replacement of insured buildings, to new condition
  4. provides that the body corporate is liable to make up any shortfall where insurance is not for full replacement value, and
  5. provides that a body corporate need not obtain insurance if it is a subsidiary of another body corporate which is required to insure the building.
• [18] For the purposes of both sections 188 and 189 Accommodation Module, and the other modules' mirror provisions, 'damage' is defined to mean:
  1. damage from earthquake, explosion, fire, lightning, storm and water; and
  2. glass breakage; and
  3. damage from impact, malicious act, and riot.

• [19] As I have noted above, it may not be possible for a body corporate to obtain the required insurance from the insurance market, and section 189 of the BCCM Act enables a body corporate to apply for an 'alternative insurance order' if it cannot. The section provides:

(1) The regulation module applying to a community titles scheme may require the body corporate to put in place insurance for the scheme.

(2) However, subsection (3) applies if a body corporate for a community titles scheme can not comply with the requirement under the regulation module applying to the scheme to insure for full replacement value -

(a) to the extent that a building is scheme land - each building in which is located a lot created under a building format plan of subdivision or a volumetric format plan of subdivision; or

(b) each building on a lot, created under a standard format plan of subdivision, that has a common wall with a building on an adjoining lot.

(3) The body corporate may make an adjudication application for an alternative insurance order.

(a) the body corporate may put in place for the scheme, in the way and to the extent the body corporate decides, additional insurance to -

(i) the insurance it is required to put in place under the regulation module applying to the scheme; or

(ii) any alternative insurance approved by an adjudicator (an alternative insurance order); and

(b) this part does not affect any obligation the body corporate may have under another Act to put insurance in place.

• [20] I note that subsections 189(2) and (3) of the BCCM Act, read strictly, might allow a body corporate to apply for an alternative insurance order, pursuant to subsection (3), regardless of whether the preceding subsection 189(2) were satisfied. However it seems clear from the requirements of section 281A(2) of the BCCM Act, discussed below, that subsection 189(2) should be read as if the word 'only' appears between the words 'applies' and 'if'. That is because the adjudicator cannot make the requested order unless the circumstances described by subsection 189(2) occur.

Criteria and guidance for alternative insurance order

• [21] Section 189 of the BCCM Act is vague in that an alternative insurance order is defined simply to be any alternative insurance approved by an adjudicator. That, by itself, would seem to allow wide discretion. However, relatively strict criteria for making an alternative insurance order, and guidance in doing so, are found in section 281A of the BCCM Act:

(1)This section applies if a body corporate for a community titles scheme makes an adjudication application for an alternative insurance order.

(2) An adjudicator may make an alternative insurance order only if the adjudicator is satisfied -

(a) the body corporate can not comply with the requirement under the regulation module applying to the scheme to put in place insurance for the scheme that insures for the full replacement value of -

(i) to the extent that a building is scheme land - each building in which is located a lot created under a building format plan of subdivision or a volumetric format plan of subdivision; or

(ii) each building on a lot, created under a standard format plan of subdivision, that has a common wall with a building on an adjoining lot; and

(b) the insurance cover under the alternative insurance is as similar as practicable to the insurance cover required under the regulation module applying to the scheme.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), in deciding whether to make an alternative insurance order, the adjudicator may consider any of the following matters -

(a) the number of insurers the body corporate attempted to take out insurance with;

(b) the reasons the body corporate was not insured by the insurers it attempted to take out insurance with;

(c) the cost of complying with the requirement to insure under the regulation module applying to the scheme.

(a) for a community titles scheme other than a specified two-lot scheme - the alternative insurance the body corporate proposes to put in place was not approved at a general meeting; or

(b) for a specified two-lot scheme - the alternative insurance the body corporate proposes to put in place was not authorised under a lot owner agreement for the scheme.

(5) The adjudicator may make an alternative insurance order on the condition that -

(a) if subsection (4)(a) applies - the alternative insurance is approved at a general meeting within the period stated in the order; or

(b) if subsection (4)(b) applies - the alternative insurance is confirmed under a lot owner agreement within the period stated in the order.

• [22] Perhaps most importantly, subsection 281A(2)(a) of the BCCM Act requires the adjudicator to be satisfied the body corporate cannot get the required insurance. In that regard, subsection 281A(3) invites the adjudicator to consider:
  1. whether the body corporate has approached a sufficient number of providers without success (that evidence might come from a single broker who has made enquiries of numerous providers on its behalf)
  2. whether the body corporate could improve its prospects of getting suitable offers (for example by undertaking overdue building maintenance), and
  3. whether any insurance which is offered might reasonably be declined because it has unreasonably high premiums.
• [23] Unfortunately, there is no guidance as to the second requirement, found in section 281A(2)(b) BCCM Act, that the insurance proposal must be 'as similar as practicable' to the required insurance. In some cases, there may be two or more non-compliant offers, one of which is closer to the required insurance than the others, and therefore it should be the approved proposal. However, where there is only one insurance offer, it would be difficult to conclude that it does not satisfy the 'as similar as practicable' test, unless perhaps the proposed insurance does not conform at all with the required insurance. Otherwise, it is difficult to discern from the legislation at what point the proposal becomes so inadequate that it cannot or should not be approved.

Self-insurance as insurance or alternative insurance?

• [24] A proposal to self-insure, ie, to cover the cost of damage etc from the body corporate's own funds, clearly cannot be proposed for an alternative insurance order, because 'alternative insurance' is defined in the Schedule 6 Dictionary of the Act to mean 'insurance that is not ... the body corporate's self-insurance'.
• [25] Perhaps that begs the question: could self-insurance equate to the required insurance, such that an alternative insurance order would not be needed? I note that the word insurance can have a wide meaning, depending on the context, and it is not defined in this legislation, nor for example in the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) or the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth).
• [26] Accepted statutory interpretation practice requires a provision to be interpreted with regard to the context in which the uncertain word or provision appears[5] and the apparent statutory purpose.[6] Accordingly, I note the following, regarding required insurance.
• [27] Firstly, the legislation seems predicated on the required insurance being taken out with another party, because subsections 188(3) and 189(3) Accommodation Module both refer to a 'policy of insurance' - one does not ordinarily take out a 'policy' with oneself.
• [28] Secondly, thereafter, subsections 188(4) and 189(4) Accommodation Module require a body corporate to make up any shortfall between actual and full replacement value insurance - essentially, self-insurance. Hence, the required insurance (by way of a policy) is clearly treated differently from (what is effectively) the self-insurance referred to in the following subsections.
• [29] Thirdly, the provisions of this legislation and the regulation modules which require a body corporate to budget and set aside funds for reasonably anticipated expenses do not make provision for replacing buildings in catastrophic events. A body corporate's administrative and sinking fund budgets must be forward-looking, but in the main only for the coming financial year and at most for the next 9 years to account for anticipated capital or non-recurrent expenditure, the periodic replacement of items of a major capital nature, and other expenditure that should reasonably be met from capital.[7] Perhaps building replacement could be 'other expenditure', but the liabilities contemplated by sections 188 and 189 of the Accommodation Module (and the other modules' equivalents) are potentially very large and it could not reasonably be expected that owners would annually vote to put aside such funds unless specifically required to do so.
• [30] Fourthly, there is little if any certainty that a self-insurance proposal would serve the ultimate purpose of the insurance requirement, ie to deliver the necessary funds, when required, to keep the scheme viable. There is a very real chance that the body corporate collectively and owners individually would not have funds on hand or accessible as loans to cover the full replacement cost of buildings etc.
• [31] Accordingly, in my view, self-insurance does not meet the needs of the required insurance.

• [32] The preceding sections establish when an alternative insurance order may be sought and made, but they do not indicate what the order may do. That is provided for in new item 3A of Schedule 5 BCCM Act, adding to the list of specific types of orders an adjudicator may make. It provides for '[a]n order approving alternative insurance to be put in place by a body corporate'.
• [33] I note firstly that an alternative insurance order is made in a privileged context, in that there is no respondent or an invitation to affected parties to make a submission. Long-settled principles of procedural fairness ordinarily require that affected parties have an opportunity to have their say before a decision is made. An alternative insurance order application should not be an opportunity to, as a side-wind, get any type of order without dissenting parties being heard. Accordingly, in my view, a strict approach to the form of an alternative insurance order is called for.
• [34] It seems clear from the terms of section 281A and item 3A that an alternative insurance order is to be a declaratory order. A declaration is a formal statement pronouncing upon the existence or non-existence of a legal state of affairs. (The legal state of affairs in this context would be that a course of action is approved pursuant to the BCCM Act.) A declaratory order is to be distinguished from an injunctive order, which either prohibits or requires a course of action. Given the legislation unambiguously provides for only a declaratory order in this type of application, I consider that it is the only type of alternative insurance order which can be made. As such, an alternative insurance order cannot require the body corporate to take (or not) any particular action about a proposal.
• [35] Further, item 3A is limited to declaring that a party has approval to take up an insurance proposal. Accordingly, in my view, an alternative insurance order should not pronounce upon the existence or non-existence of some other legal state of affairs, for example to deem the body corporate to have made a decision to adopt it.
• [36] Of course, the power to make injunction orders, and declaratory orders about other matters, remains open to an adjudicator in deciding an ordinary contested application for dispute resolution in the context of an alternative insurance proposal. For example, an owner might make an application to dispute a body corporate's decision about an approved alternative insurance proposal, or an application for an order that a body corporate try to get required insurance when it has made no effort to do so. Any orders made in that context would not be alternative insurance orders.

• [37] An adjudicator's approval of alternative insurance does not constitute a determination or finding that the proposed insurance is appropriate for the scheme (by definition, it is inadequate) or that it is fair value for money. The adjudicator need only be satisfied the proposed alternative insurance is 'as similar as practicable' to the required insurance, and as I have noted above that may be a low bar if there is only one offer from the market. The best advice about insurance will likely come from an experienced insurance broker or a professional working in that field.
• [38] Decisions about insurance coverage and how to proceed are a matter for owners. An alternative insurance order does not take the decision out of the body corporate's hands. Rather, as for all substantial spending decisions, the body corporate must pass a general meeting resolution to accept the alternative insurance offer, or authorise it through a lot owner agreement, either before or after the alternative insurance order is made. That is made clear by section 281A(5) of the BCCM Act, which provides that the order can be made effective on condition that an appropriate resolution or lot owner agreement is later made. Further, I have expressed the view, above, that an alternative insurance order should do no more than approve the proposed insurance to be put in place and it cannot (for example) deem the proposal to have been adopted by owners.
• [39] The ultimate purpose of the alternative insurance provisions is not explicit in the legislation, nor is it explained in the explanatory notes for the bill introducing this legislative change to the BCCM Act.
• [40] On its face, an alternative insurance order gives formal approval for the body corporate to take a course of action which falls short of what is required. In making the order, an adjudicator must have been reasonably satisfied that the body corporate, while non-compliant, tried its best. For practical purposes, it seems the order would at most serve as a lawful excuse for that non-compliance - not so much 'approval', as absolution - and thereby serve as a potential defence to an application (most likely, from a lot owner) for an order that it try to get the required insurance. That said, I cannot see any indication in the insurance provisions that a body corporate does not have a continuing obligation to seek out and (if offered) take up the required insurance, even if an alternative insurance order is in effect for the time being.
• [41] Notably, the combined effect of subsections 189(2) and (3) of the BCCM Act is that a body corporate is not compelled to seek an order enabling it take out alternative insurance - subsection 189 (3) says it may seek an order, unambiguously implying that it also may choose not to. That raises the question: what is the legal consequence of a body corporate deciding to take out a policy which does not qualify as required insurance without getting an alternative insurance order (either by not applying for one, or by having such an application dismissed)? I cannot see any indication in the legislation that the act of taking out such a policy is in itself unlawful. I note that bodies corporate do not ordinarily need to get an adjudicator's approval to enter a contract for statutorily-compliant or even additional insurance. Further, it would be difficult to argue that a decision to take out less-than-required insurance would be an unreasonable action,[8] at least where no better insurance offer was available, given that some insurance is probably better than none. Accordingly, if an adjudicator were to dismiss an alternative insurance application because they were not satisfied the body corporate had tried hard enough to get required insurance, or because the proposed alternative insurance was not as similar as practicable to the required insurance, I am not sure where that would leave the body corporate (apart from being open to a dispute resolution application about not having the required insurance).

• [42] As I have noted above, the power to approve an alternative insurance proposal arises only if the adjudicator is satisfied:
  1. that the body corporate cannot get the required insurance, and
  2. that the proposed alternative insurance is as similar as practicable to the required insurance.

Can the body corporate get the required insurance?

• [43] As to the evidence that the body corporate for Mihi Grove cannot get the required insurance, I am told that insurers, brokers and the local government insurer had declined to offer it or had advised that it was not available. I was initially provided with a copy of written communication from only one potential insurer to the body corporate to that effect, and so I asked the applicant for further evidence from other insurers or brokers in that regard. I received a response from a Senior Solicitor in the ICC's Legal and Governance Branch, as follows:

In addition to Elders Insurance, Ipswich City Council also made enquiries about insurance coverage with BCB Strata Insurance Brokers and flex insurance (who provide body corporate insurance coverage). Both BCB Strata Insurance Brokers and flex insurance responded to those enquiries by phone on 2 January 2025. In those phone conversations, both BCB Strata Insurance Brokers and flex insurance indicated that they were unable to obtain coverage, or offer coverage, respectively, to the body corporate for Mihi Grove.

• [44] The ICC's solicitor offered to provide that information in the form of a statutory declaration. In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept those matters as fact.[9] I am therefore satisfied, for the purposes of subsection 281A(2)(a) of the BCCM Act, that the body corporate cannot get the required insurance.

Is the proposed alternative insurance as similar as practicable?

• [45] In its original submissions, the applicant informed me that it proposed to rely on the ICCs own insurance but also acknowledge that that insurance was 'unlikely to extend very far' in covering the body corporate. I therefore asked the body corporate (through the ICC) to clarify the extent to which (if at all) the ICC's insurance would conform to the required insurance, and if it did not conform at all, whether other circumstances warranted making an alternative insurance order. The applicant responded:

1. The applicant concedes that the ICC's insurance policy does not at all meet the requirements for the body corporate's insurance of things mentioned in the Act. The only potential overlap of ICC's insurance coverage with the requirements of the Act is with respect to section 196 of the Accommodation Module, as ICC officers involved with the body corporate would be covered against third party claims. 2. The body corporate is faced with the circumstances that:

(i) aside from self-insuring, the body corporate has been unable to obtain any insurance, either alternate or in compliance with the Act and Accommodation Module; and > > (ii) the ultimate intention of the body corporate being terminated and the built form demolished, and the extent of the risk that flooding presents to the land on which the body corporate is situated, are preventing the body corporate from being offered any policy of insurance at all.

1. In circumstances where the only avenue available to the body corporate is self-insurance, we will accept if an alternate insurance order is unable to be made in accordance with the Act and the Accommodation Module. However, if the adjudicator is minded to consider the body corporate self-insuring as an alternate insurance order in these circumstances, the body corporate would be intending to self-insure against damage to the common property, the body corporate assets and buildings (including lots and buildings with common walls) and public risk insurance of the common property and relevant assets (where not covered by ICC's insurance cover, covering compensation for death, illness and bodily injury or damage to property).

1. However, in view of the ultimate intention for the body corporate to be terminated and the built form demolished, the body corporate would not be intending to self-insure for the full replacement value of the common property, body corporate assets and buildings, or any costs incidental to that reinstatement. 2. The body corporate considers that approach offers as near as practical a degree of conformance, in the circumstances.

• [46] It is clear from that submission that the proposed alternative insurance does not, to any meaningful extent, meet the requirements of either subsections 188(2) and (3) or subsections 189(2) and (3) of the Accommodation Module.
• [47] I have suggested above that, where there is only one proposal, whatever it offers may be enough to meet the 'as similar as practicable' test. However, I consider that the purported compliance must still have some substance, even if only to a small degree. Otherwise, approving a proposal involving no substantial compliance would seemingly render the alternative insurance provisions pointless.
• [48] In this case, where there is no substantial compliance with the required insurance, I am not satisfied that the proposed insurance is as similar as practicable to the required insurance, for the purposes of section 281A(2)(b) of the Act.

• [49] I am satisfied that the body corporate cannot get the required insurance, but I must dismiss the application because I am not satisfied that the proposed alternative insurance meets the requirement to be as similar as practicable to the required insurance.
• [50] As I have noted above, I do not consider that this decision stops the body corporate from calling upon the ICC's insurance to whatever extent it can.

In the course of reviewing my statement of reasons, I noted certain omissions and errors, now corrected as follows:

• − in paragraph 30, first line, by inserting the word 'serve' between the words 'would' and 'the'.
• − in paragraph 34, first line, by substituting the word 'section' for 'sections'.

The orders and the substantive reasons remain unchanged.

[2] https://www.qld.gov.au/housing/buying-owning-home/financial-help-concessions/resilient-homes-fund/overview/buy-back

[3] ACCC Northern Australia Insurance Inquiry Final report November 2020[, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Northern%20Australia%20Insurance%20Inquiry%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%2030%20November%202020.pdf accessed 11 February 2025](, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Northern%20Australia%20Insurance%20Inquiry%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%2030%20November%202020.pdf accessed 11 February 2025)

[4] I note all of the regulation modules have the same provisions. See: sections 198 and 199 of the Standard Module; sections 145 and 146 of the Commercial Module; sections 117 and 118 of the Small Schemes Module; sections 49 and 50 of the Specified Two-lot Schemes Module

[5] See, eg Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36; (1996) 186 CLR 389, 396-7

[6] See, eg, Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 35; (1998) 194 CLR 355, 381 [69]

[7] See for example Accommodation Module s 150 and generally Ch 7, Parts 2 and 5.

[8] Ie, in contravention of section 94(2) of the Act.

[9] In other circumstances, an adjudicator might reasonably require documentary evidence that it is has been declined insurance.