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

INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders are warranted

Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 278, 279, and 301; Standard Module, s 48

1. Australasian Body Corporate Management (AUSBCM) is appointed as an administrator (Interim Administrator) until a new secretary is appointed by the body corporate at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM).
2. The Interim Administrator will perform all the obligations of the secretary for the body corporate and, for the period of the appointment, shall have all the powers of a secretary, including the power to (in accordance with the respective legislative requirements):
   1. call committee meetings
   2. give notice and advice of motions to be considered and decided by the committee outside a committee meeting
   3. invite nominations from owners for the secretary position
   4. receive motions from members of the body corporate or from the committee for consideration at an EGM
   5. call an EGM
   6. issue a notice for the EGM, and
   7. vote on motions to be decided by the committee.
3. The remuneration payable to AUSBCM for its appointment as Interim Administrator is as per the consent provided by AUSBCM on 25 November 2025 except that AUSBCM may only charge a fee for Interim Administrator (secretary) services it provides where such services are in addition to, and are not duplicative of, services AUSBCM is already performing under its existing contract with the body corporate.
4. The application for interim orders is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about conflict within the committee and whether the committee is performing its duties and discharging its statutory functions.
• [2] The applicant, a lot owner and ordinary member of the committee, says the secretary resigned in mid-October. Despite several requests to the chairperson and treasurer that the committee decide to appoint a new secretary, a new secretary has not been appointed.
• [3] The applicant says the remaining 6-person committee is divided and non-functional. Although there are several important and pressing issues to be resolved, she says information is not being shared and there have been no committee meetings or votes outside committee meetings. She says this means critical and time-sensitive decisions are not being made, and expenditure on essential services is not being authorised.
• [4] As examples of the dysfunction and inaction, the applicant points to the committee's failure to discuss and make decisions about a claim filed against the body corporate in the Magistrates Court relating to a contract for elevator works (Elevator Claim). She also says the scheme is effectively without a caretaker which is causing issues with cleaning, waste management, and maintenance at the scheme (Caretaker Issues). She says the committee is not taking the steps required for the body corporate to decide to engage a new caretaker.
• [5] While her application for final orders is pending, the applicant is seeking 5 interim orders. The primary interim order sought is that the current body corporate manager (BCM) be appointed as an interim administrator.
• [6] For the reasons given below, I have appointed the BCM as an interim administrator to perform all the obligations of the secretary for the body corporate and have made an order that the Interim Administrator will remain in that role and will have the powers of the secretary until the body corporate appoints a new secretary at a general meeting.

• [7] Monte Carlo community titles scheme 11083 (Monte Carlo) is a 52-lot scheme in Surfers Paradise. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 4099.
• [8] The applicant is the owner of Lot 42. She is also currently an ordinary member of the committee.
• [9] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Monte Carlo.

• [10] The Commissioner referred the application for an interim order to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [11] The parties to the dispute are the owner of a lot and the body corporate. This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act.[1]
• [12] An adjudicator has jurisdiction generally to make orders that are just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute between certain parties about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[2]
• [13] This dispute includes assertions that the respondent is failing to perform duties under the Act and includes claims of contraventions of the Act. I am thus satisfied this is a dispute within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and it is within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[3]
• [14] An adjudicator is expressly given the power to make an interim order "if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[4]
• [15] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. In the circumstances, I provided the committee with a brief opportunity to provide its comments on the application.[5]

• [16] The applicant says generally that the dysfunctional state of the current committee has rendered the body corporate incapable of performing its statutory and administrative functions.
• [17] Regarding the committee, the applicant says:

1. the body corporate held its annual general meeting (AGM) on 31 July 2025 at which it elected a chairperson, secretary, treasurer, and 4 ordinary committee members 2. on 13 October 2025, the secretary resigned 3. between 14 October and 3 November, the applicant and 2 of the other ordinary committee members wrote repeatedly to the chairperson and treasurer asking that a meeting be convened to:

(i) fill the vacant secretary position > > (ii) discuss the current caretaker and facilities maintenance management arrangements, and > > (iii) address routine administration, maintenance, correspondence, and expenditure approvals

1. the chairperson, treasurer, and remaining ordinary committee member did not respond to the requests and no committee meeting has been scheduled to address any of the above issues.

• [18] The applicant explains there are at least 3 major issues currently of concern for which the committee needs to make decisions. Firstly, there is a prior dispute with a caretaker for the scheme that is in the process of being resolved. However, while the resolution remains pending, the scheme is effectively without a caretaker. She says this means the scheme is without essential cleaning, waste disposal, and safety compliance services.
• [19] Secondly, on 14 November 2025, a contractor engaged to provide a building condition report identified 42 items requiring maintenance or other works.
• [20] Thirdly, the applicant says the body corporate is in a dispute with a contractor who recently installed new elevators at the scheme. For the elevator dispute, the applicant says:
  1. lawyers for the contractor emailed the body corporate on 5 September 2025 requesting immediate payment of outstanding invoices but, to the applicant's knowledge, neither the committee nor its lawyers responded
  2. on 30 September 2025, the contractor filed a statement of claim in the Magistrates Court of Queensland against the body corporate for non-payment of $65,456 (Elevator Claim)
  3. the body corporate needed to file a notice of intention to defend the Elevator Claim within 28 days to avoid default judgment
  4. as a committee member, she did not become aware of the Elevator Claim until 31 October 2025 when the BCM circulated the Elevator Claim to the committee with a summary and options for proceeding
  5. also on 31 October 2025, a law firm ostensibly representing the body corporate sought instructions from the committee regarding urgent action about the Elevator Claim
  6. on 3 November she raised concerns about whether the chairperson could instruct the lawyers without a committee vote
  7. on 4 November the law firm wrote to the committee proposing an approach to the Elevator Claim and providing an estimate of the legal costs to do so
  8. on 4-5 November she repeatedly asked the chairperson to initiate a vote outside committee meeting (VOCM) so the committee could formally make decisions about legal representation, legal expenditure, and options for responding to the Elevator Claim, and
  9. although she received a non-committal response from the chairperson on 5 November, she has not received further correspondence from him nor has she been included on any other correspondence from the body corporate's law firm about the Elevator Claim.
• [21] The applicant says the consequences of the 3 committee members failing to respond or engage and the lack of committee meetings and decision making are that:
  • the committee has not filled the casual vacancy for secretary
  • the committee is unable to approve invoices, quotations, and maintenance work
  • the committee has not responded to the Elevator Claim
  • the committee is not supervising caretaker duties or co-ordinating facilities management
  • building maintenance and safety concerns are not being attended to, and
  • there is growing owner frustration and loss of confidence in committee governance.
• [22] In summary, the applicant says "[t]his state of paralysis means the Body Corporate is not fulfilling its obligations to administer common property and assets in a reasonable and effective manner."
• [23] The applicant is seeking 5 final orders. Those orders include dissolving the existing committee and appointment of the current BCM as administrator of the body corporate until the next AGM. The applicant proposes final orders be made that the BCM, as administrator, perform the committee's functions during that period including by engaging a caretaker for a 12 month period, calling an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), and resolving the Elevator Claim.
• [24] While her application for final orders is pending, the applicant is seeking 5 interim orders relating to:
  1. the appointment of the BCM as an interim administrator
  2. suspension of committee powers
  3. caretaking arrangements
  4. limited authority for urgent actions, and
  5. steps to prevent default judgment for the Elevator Claim.
• [25] Included with the application was a statement from the BCM describing its suitability to act as an administrator for the scheme and consenting to act in that capacity.

• [26] I investigated the application and required the committee to inform me whether it had appointed a new secretary to fill the vacant position or had called an EGM so that the body corporate could do so.
• [27] The chairperson responded that a secretary had not been appointed and an EGM had yet to be called. As to the reason why, he said "[t]he delay in providing an instruction to call the EGM is because the committee had not provided an instruction to the Body Corporate Manager until todays formal request for a VOCM to be circulated to call an EGM as the 30 days has only recently passed."
• [28] An ordinary member of the committee also responded to my request for information about the vacant secretary position. He wrote that upon the resignation of the prior secretary, the BCM corresponded with the committee advising of the process and timeline for appointing a new secretary, seeking dates for a committee meeting, and the committee's options for seeking the services of a temporary caretaker. He understands a new secretary has not been appointed and that the chairperson is acting in the role and is also purporting to undertake caretaking services without calling for a vote or EGM on those roles.
• [29] The same committee member also says he supports the application for interim orders dismissing the current committee and appointing the BCM as interim administrator. In his view, the current committee cannot work in the best interests of the body corporate.

• [30] In response to my invitation to make a submission about the application for interim orders, the chairperson, with the support of the treasurer and one of the ordinary members of the committee, stated:
  1. the application is seeking interim orders that would finally decide several live issues that are currently before the body corporate, which issues are legally complicated and should be the subject of proper analysis and procedures
  2. the interim orders sought would deprive the body corporate of its right to natural justice and procedural fairness, including its right to decide to defend the current litigation and/or exercise any ability to prosecute a counterclaim
  3. the committee - by 3 of its 5 members not conflicted regarding this application - decided to engage solicitors to prepare a submission in response to the application however, the BCM has not responded to the solicitor's request for confirmation of the committee's decision to engage them
  4. on 2 December 2025, he asked the BCM to circulate a VOCM so the committee could authorise the calling of an EGM "at the earliest date to call for nominations from owners to fill the [secretary] vacancy"
  5. on 3 December 2025, an owner of more than 25% lots in the scheme requested that the committee call an EGM so the vacant secretary position could be filled, and
  6. as of 4 December 2025, the BCM has not circulated a VOCM to the committee regarding the calling of an EGM
• [31] The chairperson asks that the adjudicator grant a 28-day extension of time so its lawyers can prepare a response to the application for interim submissions. He also asks that the Commissioner "acknowledge ... the VOCM in authorising the engagement of our solicitors."
• [32] An owner of a lot also made an interim submission.[6] The lot owner firmly opposes the application for interim orders appointing the BCM as an administrator and supports the chairperson. The lot owner says the chairperson "has a significant responsibility to protect us. The Committee has given him the authority to liaise between our body corporate solicitor, [parties involved in the Elevator Claim], and [the caretaker]."
• [33] The treasurer for the body corporate, who supported the chairperson's submission and was privy to the other lot owner submission, agreed with the lot owner. In her view, "[t]he allegations that [the Elevator Claim] is an urgent matter is unjustified because our solicitors and our well experienced chairman will successfully oppose on our behalf as a normal commercial business practice."
• [34] The fifth ordinary member of the committee (who was not one of the ordinary members who supported the chairperson's submission and not the same committee member who responded to my request for information) also made submissions about the application for interim orders. He supports the application for interim orders.
• [35] The representative of the owner of 17 lots also made an interim submission. He opposes the application and says the appointment of an interim administrator is unnecessary and unwarranted. He says if the BCM had taken proper steps to fill the committee vacancy, the committee would be in a position to fulfil its functions.
• [36] Regarding issues with caretaking services, the owner representative says the chairperson has been appointed by the committee to perform interim supervision duties of caretaking services. He says it appears these duties are being carried out to a satisfactory standard and that the sentiment of the majority of owners it not to lock in a new caretaker. For the Elevator Claim, he understands the lawyers for the body corporate are negotiating with the claimant. He suggests decisions about the Elevator Claim and caretaking services should be made by all owners at a general meeting.

• [37] The only issue to decide at this time is whether the requested interim orders are warranted.
• [38] If I am satisfied an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances, I may make an interim order that is just and equitable. Adjudicators often make interim orders in the form of a temporary injunction (an order not to do something) to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of an application.
• [39] To determine if it is just and equitable to make an interim order, there must be some reason in law to make an order. For this, I must consider the substantive issue in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered. At this stage, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their legal arguments will be successful.[7] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success to justify making an order.
• [40] I must also consider the practical reasons for and the likely effects of an interim order. This is known as assessing the balance of convenience between the parties. To do this, I must consider the inconvenience or harm to the body corporate if I do not make an interim order but final orders later determine the respondents have contravened the CMS or the Act. I must weigh that against the harm to the respondents if I grant an interim order and the body corporate is later unsuccessful in its application for final orders.
• [41] Accordingly, to determine whether I am satisfied an interim order is warranted and appropriate, I will consider whether a serious legal issue has been presented with sufficient likelihood of success and I will also weigh the balance of convenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.

• [42] I am satisfied the application raises several serious legal issues about compliance with the Act and the management and administration of the scheme.

• [43] The body corporate is charged with administering, managing, and controlling the common property and body corporate assets reasonably and for the benefit of the owners of the lots included in the scheme.[8] A body corporate is also charged with enforcing its CMS (including by-laws) and carrying out other statutory functions.[9] Those other functions include managing the body corporate's finances by making expenditure decisions.
• [44] Generally speaking, a body corporate fulfills most of its functions by making decisions. Some decisions can be made on its behalf by the committee. Other decisions must be made by the members of the body corporate (owners) voting on motions proposed at a general meeting.

• [45] When the committee is the body making a decision, it is doing so on behalf of the body corporate in a representative capacity. Section 97 of the Act provides that a body corporate can not delegate its powers. Adjudicators have stated this means the committee can not delegate its decision making powers to an individual committee member or a sub-committee.[10]
  • [46] A committee must exercise its decision-making powers in the way required by the legislation.[11] A motion at a committee meeting is decided by the majority of votes of the voting members present and entitled to vote on the motion.[12] Each voting member of the committee present and entitled to vote has 1 vote per motion.[13]
• [47] The committee has a statutory duty to act reasonably.[14] As a body, a committee also has general duties to act in good faith and in the interests of the body corporate.[15]
  • [48] The Act also provides that individual committee members must comply with a code of conduct that requires them to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of the body corporate when performing their duties and making decisions as voting members of the committee.[16] The Act further requires individual committee members to disclose a direct or indirect interest that could conflict with their duties about the consideration of an issue.[17] Individual committee members are not entitled to vote on motions involving the conflicted issue.[18]

• [49] A body corporate regulated by the Standard Module must have a committee unless it engages a BCM under Part 5.[19] The body corporate for Monte Carlo must have a secretary.[20]
• [50] Eligible persons must be elected or appointed to act as executive or ordinary members of the committee for the body corporate in the way provided for in the regulations. The applicable regulations also provide for the term of office of committee members,[21] and prescribes a process by which a committee member may be removed from their role for breaching the code of conduct. [22]
• [51] Section 44 of the Standard Module provides the term of office of a member of the committee continues until either another person is chosen for the position, the position becomes vacant, or the term of office ends.
• [52] Where a committee position becomes vacant, section 48(1) of the Standard Module provides the body corporate has 1 month in which to fill the vacancy. The committee is empowered to decide to appoint a new committee member or alternatively, it may call a general meeting so that owners can decide who will fill the vacancy.

• [53] The applicable body corporate legislation largely gives bodies corporate the responsibility for self-management. Indeed, that is recognised as an inherent aspect of a scheme and is one of the express purposes of the Act.[23]
  • [54] However, the legislation gives an adjudicator express power to make orders appointing an administrator for a scheme.[24] An adjudicator's order appointing an administrator will define the powers that are being given to the administrator.[25] Such an order may require that the administrator receive assistance and may fix the remuneration to be paid by the body corporate.[26]
  • [55] Although adjudicators are empowered to appoint an administrator, the legislation does not describe the criteria nor any factors an adjudicator should consider when determining whether it would be appropriate to make such an order.[27] Certainly, the effects of appointing an administrator require consideration. Those effects include that such an order shifts at least some of the decision making for a scheme from the body corporate to the administrator and that the costs of the administrator will be borne by the body corporate.
  • [56] In my view, the discretion afforded to an adjudicator is not simply whether to appoint an administrator but also to decide what powers an administrator can exercise.[28] I consider an adjudicator has the discretion to appoint an administrator with quite wide or narrow and more specific powers.[29]
  • [57] Indeed, where administrator powers are concerned, section 301(4) of the Act expressly provides that an adjudicator may make an order withdrawing all or particular powers from

... stated officers of the body corporate until the administrator has taken the necessary action to secure compliance with the obligations.

• [58] Section 278 of the Act further expressly provides that:

If an adjudicator appoints an administrator to perform obligations of the body corporate, the committee for the body corporate or a member of the committee, anything done by the administrator under the authority given under the order is taken to have been done by the body corporate, committee or member. (my emphasis added)

• [59] By asserting the committee[30] has failed to fill the vacant secretary role - by either calling an EGM or the committee deciding to appoint a new secretary - within the 1 month required, I am satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions whether the body corporate has contravened the legislation.
• [60] I am also satisfied the applicant has raised serious legal questions with sufficient likelihood of success about whether the committee is contravening section 100(5) of the Act by making (or not making) decisions. Aside from the secretary vacancy, it appears there are several outstanding issues about which the committee could make decisions on behalf of the body corporate. Alternatively, the committee could choose to call an EGM so that owners may make decisions about those issues.
• [61] Moreover, the applicant has raised serious legal issues whether the committee's alleged failure to act reasonably is causing the body corporate to fail to perform its statutory functions.
• [62] I note there are several comments suggesting generally that the chairperson can and/or should make these decisions on behalf of the committee and specifically that he has been granted the authority to liaise with lawyers or parties on behalf of the committee.
• [63] Although the chairperson may have been authorised to liaise with the lawyers, it is my preliminary view any such authorisation cannot usurp the committee's role to act as the decision maker for the body corporate and the chairperson's authority is limited to being the liaison for communications purposes only.
• [64] I am thus persuaded there is also a serious legal issue about whether the committee has purported to delegate decision-making powers in contravention of the Act.

Nature or urgency of the circumstances and balance of convenience

• [65] In terms of the nature or urgency of the circumstances, I am satisfied the pendency of the Elevator Claim and the need for the body corporate to resolve its dispute with its caretaker are sufficient to warrant consideration of an interim order.
• [66] I am also satisfied the current committee has split views on many critical issues, with 3 committee members taking one view and the other 3 committee members taking an opposing view. Where it takes the majority of committee voting members present and entitled to vote to decide to pass a motion, there is a distinct possibility without a secretary, the 3 versus 3 split will mean the committee will be at an impasse and fail to make decisions.
• [67] Regarding balance of convenience or harm, I consider the balance weighs in favour of making an interim order.
• [68] The committee have decided (if only by default) not to appoint a secretary to the vacant role. I do not agree with the suggestion by one owner that "any dysfunction can be rectified very quickly through the holding of an EGM to fill the current vacancy."
• [69] If no interim orders are made, there will be no secretary until the body corporate decides to appoint one at an EGM - which is a minimum of 21 days after a notice has been issued for such a meeting. This timeframe does not take into account the additional time for the committee to consider whether it wishes to invite owners to submit nominations for the vacant secretary position (and allow them time to do so), to meet or decide by VOCM resolve to call an EGM and consider motions to be proposed at the EGM, or to prepare an agenda for the EGM.
• [70] As it currently stands, in my view, it is likely the committee may continue to be paralysed and may fail to make time sensitive decisions with the result that the body corporate and its members may suffer various harms and inconvenience.
• [71] Conversely, by making an interim order in the form described below, the harm to the body corporate is limited in time and expense, with the limited inconvenience of having an adjudicator-appointed secretary until the members of the body corporate can decide at an EGM to appoint a new one.

• [72] The applicant seeks 5 specific interim orders. Several overlap or are related and I will consider them in groups.

• [73] The applicant seeks by Interim Order 2 that I suspend all the powers of the committee. To fill the vacuum that would leave, by Interim Order 1, she asks I appoint an interim administrator (the BCM) to have all the powers of the committee, including to respond to the Elevator Claim.
• [74] I do not consider the circumstances warrant, nor am I prepared to, make interim orders suspending the committee and appointing the BCM as interim administrator with all the powers of the committee.
• [75] However, the secretary role remains vacant and I am persuaded in the circumstances it needs to be filled so that the committee and the body corporate can make decisions and fulfil their functions until such times as the body corporate holds an EGM and decides to appoint a new secretary. In my view, it is just and equitable to appoint the BCM as an interim administrator (the Interim Administrator) with the powers, and to perform the functions, of the secretary.
• [76] In terms of compensation for services as Interim Administrator, the BCM provided a consent dated 25 November 2025 to an appointment as administrator for the body corporate. Included with the consent were its proposed fees and charges for administrator services.
• [77] I have made an interim order that the remuneration to be paid to the BCM for the appointment as Interim Administrator is as per the fees it proposes in its consent. However, I anticipate that some of the functions to be performed in this role may be duplicative of services the BCM is already performing pursuant to its BCM agreement with the body corporate. For example, preparing and issuing agendas and notices for an EGM. Accordingly, for the avoidance of doubt, AUSBCM is only permitted to charge for its services as Interim Administrator where the services it provides under the appointment are in addition to (and are not duplicative of) the BCM services it is already contractually obligated to perform for the body corporate.

• [78] The applicant is seeking as Interim Order 3 that I empower the interim administrator to investigate the status of the body corporate's resolution of its dispute with its current caretaker and to arrange emergency caretaking services while that dispute remains pending.
• [79] In my view, the applicant's concerns about the status of the caretaker dispute and emergency caretaking services are issues that can (and should) be resolved either through decisions made by the committee (not just the chairperson) or by decisions made by the body corporate at an EGM. It is likely that the engagement of temporary caretaking services is something that is within the committee's spending limit and the committee can consider competing proposals and make decisions.
• [80] As for the dispute with the current caretaker, I understand the body corporate has engaged a law firm to provide advice. The entire committee should be informed of that advice and consider what decisions are to be made to resolve that dispute. Those decisions may include adding committee motions to the agenda for an EGM so that owners may make decisions.
• [81] I consider it is not necessary to make this interim order and I decline to do so.

• [82] The applicant is also seeking by Interim Order 4 that I give the interim administrator a limited power to pay critical invoices and address immediate safety hazards.
• [83] Again, whether to pay invoices and whether to take actions to address safety hazards are decisions that most likely can (and if so should) be made by the committee.
• [84] Where the Interim Administrator is empowered to call a committee meeting or alternatively to issue notices for motions to be considered by a VOCM, the committee should be the body considering (within its spending limits) whether to pay those invoices or undertake maintenance works. In my view, it would be premature for me to empower an administrator to make those decisions.
• [85] I thus consider it is not necessary to make Interim Order 4 and I decline to do so.

• [86] Finally, by Interim Order 5, the applicant is asking that I give the interim administrator a limited power to negotiate, seek legal advice, and take steps to prevent default judgment for the Elevator Claim. She says "until the Adjudicator determines the matter" the body corporate should not make final payment to resolve the Elevator Claim.
• [87] I understand the body corporate has engaged a law firm to provide advice about the Elevator Claim. The entire committee should be informed of that advice and consider and make decisions about how it wishes to proceed to resolve that dispute. It is for the committee (or the body corporate at a general meeting) to make decisions how to proceed. The decisions are not for the chairperson nor for any other individual committee member to make unilaterally.
• [88] I consider it is not necessary to make this interim order and I decline to do so.
• [89] Further, I note that the applicant appears to suggest that an adjudicator is to determine as part of final orders whether the body corporate should pay the amounts at issue in the Elevator Claim. That suggestion is misplaced. Decisions about how to respond to the Elevator Claim are for the body corporate to make and, if not settled, the body corporate's liability will be for determination by a Magistrate and not an adjudicator.

• [90] I have made interim orders for the reasons given above.
• [91] If the dispute is not resolved and the applicant does not withdraw the application, the application for final orders will remain to be determined. The application will be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[31] The dispute may then be resolved by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from all affected parties.
• [92] I remind all committee members and owners that the making of an interim order does not preclude the parties from trying to resolve the issues in dispute themselves. Quite the contrary, notwithstanding the interim order, the committee and the body corporate are expected to take steps to make decisions and return to complete self-management.
• [93] Finally, I note that owners of more than 25% of lots have requested that the body corporate hold an EGM. As a result, I am satisfied the body corporate will shortly be holding an EGM. I encourage the committee to consider which issues it thinks should be resolved by the owners at a general meeting and whether it can (or should) propose motions to be included on the EGM agenda so that the body corporate can make such decisions sooner rather than later.

[3] Sections 226, 228 and 276 of the Act

[5] In the circumstances, I declined the committee's requestion for a one-month extension of time to make a submission.

[6] I invited the committee to make an interim submission. The invitation was inadvertently distributed to all owners.

[7] Although an applicant must identify a genuine legal issue to be decided, the granting of an interim order does not mean an applicant will necessarily prevail on an application for final orders.

[8] See Sections 94(1)(a) and 152(1) of the Act

[9] See Sections 94(1)(b) and (c) of the Act

[10] See e.g., The Wellington Boutique Apartments [2023] QBCCMCmr 354 at [47] - [49]; Sun Lagoon [2022] QBCCMCmr 442 at [50]; Ardoch [2021] QBCCMCmr 304 at [3]- [4]; Raby Bay Quays [2025] QBCCMCmr 390 at [22]-[24]

[11] For example, the committee may authorise spending only in the way permitted by the legislation. See Section 172 of the Standard Module. I am unaware of any provision empowering a chairperson to unilaterally authorise spending, even in an emergency.

[12] See Section 65(2) of the Standard Module. Motions decided by the committee outside a meeting are also passed if the majority of the committee members vote in favour of the motion.

[13] See Section 65(4) of the Standard Module

[15] See e.g., Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 (Palm Springs), at [56]-[74]

[16] See Section 101B and Schedule 1A (at 2 and 3) of the Act

[17] See Section 66(1) of the Standard Module

[18] See Section 66(2) of the Standard Module

[20] Section 9(2) of the Standard Module

[26] Sections 301(4) and 301(5) of the Act

[27] Surace v Commiso [2009] QCCTBCCM 42 (Surace)

[29] See e.g., Body Corporate for Donnelly House v Shaw [2015] QDC 139 at [61]- [65] for a discussion of considerations and evidence to be considered when appointing an administrator for a specific purpose and deciding the powers to be given to the administrator.

[30] I note the representative of the owner of 17 lots suggests the BCM was not proactive in facilitating the committee to organise a new secretary. At this preliminary stage, I consider that assertion to be contrary to the evidence, e.g., the BCM's 21 October 2025 email to the committee.