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

INTERIM ORDERS - where body corporate manager appointed as an interim administrator resigned, whether interim orders should be cancelled or varied to appoint a new interim adminstrator_._

Act, ss 276, 279, and 301; Standard Module, s 48

1. I declare the interim orders made in Monte Carlo [2025] QBCCMCmr 439 are cancelled and replaced with the following interim orders.
2. I appoint Body Corporate Headquarters (BCHQ) to act as an administrator (Interim Administrator) until a new secretary is appointed by the body corporate at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM).
3. 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, except where the Interim Administrator has a conflict of interest.
4. The remuneration payable by the body corporate to BCHQ for its appointment as Interim Administrator is as per the consent and fee schedule (at page 5) provided by BCHQ on 9 December 2025.
5. The application for interim orders is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] The applicant, the owner of a lot and an ordinary member of the committee, says the committee is divided and dysfunctional.
• [2] The applicant says the committee is failing to make decisions, perform its duties, and discharge its statutory functions. Among other things, she says the committee is not authorising expenditure on essential services, organising regular maintenance services at the scheme, or making several other important and time sensitive decisions about pending disputes. The applicant says these failures are due to, among other things, inadequate communication and internal conflict within the committee.
• [3] When the secretary resigned in mid-October 2025, the committee was required to either appoint a new secretary or to call an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) so owners could do so. Despite her urging, the applicant says the committee did neither. This left the 6-member committee divided into two factions, with 3 committee members on each side.
• [4] The applicant originally sought an interim order that the body corporate manager (BCM) for the scheme at the time be appointed as an interim administrator to perform the functions, and with the powers, of the committee.
• [5] On 8 December 2025, for the reasons given in Monte Carlo [2025] QBCCMCmr 439 (Interim Order), I declined to appoint the BCM as administrator with the powers of the committee. However, I was satisfied it was appropriate to make an interim order appointing the BCM as an interim administrator to perform the functions, and with the powers, of the secretary for the body corporate (Interim Administrator). I ordered that the Interim Administrator would be in the role until the body corporate appoints a new secretary at an EGM.
• [6] On 9 October 2025, the BCM notified the body corporate that "effective immediately" it would cease providing management services to the body corporate. As a consequence, the BCM named in the Interim Order will not be taking up the appointment as Interim Administrator. This has the practical effect of rendering the orders made in the Interim Order a nullity.
• [7] After considering various proposals to vary the Interim Order, for the reasons given below, I have decided to vary the Interim Order and appoint a different BCM as an Interim Administrator.

• [8] 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.
• [9] The applicant is the owner of Lot 42. She is also currently an ordinary member of the committee. 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. I remain satisfied this is a dispute within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and it is within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[1]
  • [11] Adjudicators have the power to make a variety of orders to resolve disputes.[2] These include the power to make an order appointing an administrator or appointing an administrator specifically to assist the enforcement of another order.[3] The administrator has the powers given to the administrator under the order.[4]
  • [12] Adjudicators are also 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."[5] An adjudicator also has the power to extend, vary, renew, or cancel an interim order.[6]
  • [13] When the Interim Order I made on 8 December 2025 was rendered ineffective by the resignation of (now former) BCM, the chairperson originally proposed that I vary the Interim Order to appoint a different BCM to act as Interim Administrator. I then invited the applicant and other committee members to submit their proposals to vary the Interim Order. In response, I received various proposals from committee members and from lot owners.[7]

• [14] In the application, 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.
• [15] More specifically, the applicant says she and the former BCM both separately and repeatedly requested information from the chairperson and asked that the committee meet or otherwise make decisions about a variety of issues, concerning regular maintenance works and payments, appointment of a new secretary, and two legal matters (the Elevator Claim and the Caretaker Matter).
• [16] 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.
• [17] For the reasons given in the Interim Order, I was satisfied that the application raises several serious legal issues about compliance with the Act and the management and administration of the scheme.
• [18] After weighing the balance of harm and considering the other consequences of making interim orders, I was persuaded in the circumstances the functions of the secretary need to be performed so that the committee can at a minimum call an EGM and make decisions until owners decide who to appoint as the new secretary.
• [19] Accordingly, I exercised my powers and made interim orders appointing AUSBCM as an Interim Administrator to perform the functions, and with the powers, of the secretary. AUSBCM has since resigned and will not be serving as Interim Administrator.
• [20] I received several responses to my invitation to the applicant and to committee members to submit their proposals to vary the Interim Order. I also received several uninvited proposals and comments about the various proposals from lot owners.
• [21] The proposals to vary the Interim Order can be summarised as follows:
  1. The chairperson originally proposed I appoint Body Corporate Headquarters (BCHQ), a company that provides body corporate management services, to replace AUSBCM as the Interim Administrator with the powers of the secretary.[8] He subsequently proposed I appoint BCHQ to act as an Interim Administrator with all the powers of the committee and also that I appoint BCHQ to act as an interim BCM.
  2. A member of the committee proposed that appoint the former secretary (who has consented) to continue to act as secretary pending an EGM.
  3. In the alternative, the same committee member proposed that I appoint a representative from another body corporate management firm (AUA) to act as Interim Administrator with the powers of secretary. A consent from AUA and a costs proposal was submitted.
  4. The owner of 17 lots wrote to advise it had requested that the body corporate hold an EGM so owners could consider its motion proposing that its nominee be appointed to the vacant secretary position. It says the nominee had consented to acting as the secretary prior to the EGM if such an appointment was required.
• [22] The applicant did not submit a proposal for variations to the Interim Order.
• [23] Uninvited correspondence was also received from several lot owners. Those owners variously objected to one or more of the above proposals for different reasons. One owner suggested they would appeal any interim order re-appointing the former secretary to the role. At least two owners suggested they would be nominating at the next EGM to be a committee member should any vacancies occur.
• [24] The owner of Lot 24 also wrote suggesting they would propose a motion at the EGM that the body corporate remove a current member from the committee and appoint the owner of Lot 24 to replace him.
• [25] After receiving the proposal that AUA be appointed as Interim Administrator, the chairperson made a further submission urging that BCHQ should be appointed to the role because:
  • it is the firm preferred by the owner of 17 lots and 3 committee members
  • it is likely owners will vote at the EGM to engage BCHQ as the new BCM for the scheme, and
  • the appointment will enable BCHQ to pay accounts and return stability, functionality, and governance to the body corporate.
• [26] In view of the time of year, holiday closures, and required transfer of the body corporate's books and records and accounts from its former BCM, the chairperson proposed a timeframe for various actions and requests varied interim orders as follows:

That BCHQ be appointed on a consultancy basis as an Administrator for Monte Carlo for a period of 90 days from the date of the order and > > That BCHQ be appointed on an interim basis as Body Corporate Managers pursuant with their agreement and BCHQ be instructed to call an EGM within 90 days of their appointment as Administrator, to present motions and nominations for election to the committee as received from owners before the 31st January 2026 and to include a motion for BCHQ ongoing appointment as Body Corporate Managers as per the attached proposal. > > Further, should a valid committee not be appointed at the EGM, that the BCHQ appointment as Administrator be extended until either - a valid committee is elected or the next AGM whichever occurs first, and that the maximum term of appointment as Administrator be limited to 12 months.

• [27] I remain satisfied that the application raises several serious legal issues about compliance with the Act and the management and administration of the scheme. Where it takes the majority of committee voting members present and entitled to vote to decide to pass a motion, I stated "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."[9] I was also satisfied on reasonable grounds, and remain satisfied, that an interim order was necessary so that the committee could proceed to make decisions and perform its functions.
• [28] The only question for determination at this time is whether the interim orders should be varied, and if so, how.
• [29] In my opinion, the factors to be considered in reviewing the competing proposals include: the nature of the dysfunction and body corporate's compliance with statutory requirements, the costs of the different options, balancing self-management with the return to functional decision-making, the availability of personnel, and the nature of the outstanding issues and timing of decisions to be made.
• [30] Firstly, as I noted in the Interim Order at [52], where a committee position becomes vacant, section 48(1) of the Standard Module requires that, within 1 month of the vacancy, the committee must decide to appoint a new committee member or call a general meeting so that owners can decide who will fill the vacancy. The secretary resigned in mid-October 2025 and it is now late December 2025. An EGM has not yet been called to appoint a new secretary.
• [31] Secondly, section 84 of the Standard Module provides that an EGM of the body corporate must be called within 14 days of the secretary having been given a notice signed by the owners of at least 25% of the lots in the scheme requesting an EGM (a requested EGM). Section 84(2) requires that a requested EGM must be held within 6 weeks of the notice. If a requested EGM is not called within 14 days of the original request, the owners requesting the EGM may, in writing, request that another committee member call an EGM.
• [32] There is evidence that, on 10 December 2025, the owner of more than 25% of lots in the scheme submitted a notice for a requested EGM (original request) to be held so that owners could consider its motion proposing that its nominee fill the vacant secretary position. Where there was no secretary at the time, it appears the original request was submitted to the former BCM. It is not clear whether the requesting owners have since made a further request pursuant to section 85 of the Standard Module.
• [33] Thirdly, in terms of proposed costs, I see little material difference in the costs proposed by BCHQ and AUA for services as an appointed Interim Administrator with the powers of secretary. Both appear to propose a monthly cost of less than $1,000 but both would involve a yet-to-be determined amount for additional services at an hourly rate or for disbursements. Temporarily appointing an owner, however, would come at no cost to the body corporate.
• [34] Fourthly, given the various proposals I must consider whether to temporarily appoint an owner or a BCM to act as an administrator with the powers of a secretary. On the one hand, appointing an owner temporarily to a vacant committee role would be in accord with an inherent aspect of a community titles scheme, namely, the responsibility for self-management. But, who to choose?
• [35] The former secretary is an owner who was elected unopposed to the secretary position at the most recent annual general meeting. Notwithstanding his resignation, he has consented to act as the secretary until an EGM can be held. However, it does not strike me as just and equitable to appoint someone who has resigned from a position to effectively re-fill the role. Alternatively, other owners have indicated they will nominate themselves for the secretary position at an EGM or have nominated a representative to fill the vacant secretary role pending an EGM. However, I have little basis on which to choose between those nominees. There have also been various objections to the different proposals.
• [36] Ultimately, until an EGM is held, it remains unclear who the majority of owners prefer to fill the vacant role of secretary. Moreover, were I to appoint an owner, the selection could be misinterpreted as a preference for one faction over the other.
• [37] On the other hand, while appointing a new BCM as Interim Administrator does remove some of the committee's autonomy, there are other factors to be considered. I continue to hold the view that the evenly divided 6-member committee is likely to have difficulty making decisions which will impede it from performing its functions. Further, although bodies corporate are not required to have a BCM, in the circumstances presented I am not confident the divided committee is sufficiently functional to call an EGM or return to functional decision making without some guidance and assistance from an independent administrator.
• [38] Finally, the timing of this dispute is unfortunate. The former BCM is now closed for the holiday break until 12 January 2026. Although it offered on 9 December 2025 to make the body corporate's records available for transfer or collection and to transfer the body corporate's funds to a new account nominated by the committee, it is not clear to me whether either offer has been taken up by the body corporate. In the circumstances, there is no indication (and I consider it quite unlikely) that the committee has made any decisions in this regard.
• [39] In the circumstances and for the above reasons, I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to appoint an owner as Interim Administrator to the exclusion of the other nominees. In my opinion there are several reasons why it is preferable to appoint a BCM to act as Interim Administrator to perform the functions of, and with the powers of the secretary. The Interim Administrator can call an EGM in accordance with the Act and then all members of the body corporate will have an opportunity to decide who will fill the vacant secretary position.
• [40] The next question is thus whether I vary the Interim Order to appoint BCHQ or AUA as Interim Administrator. Cost is not a distinguishing factor. BCHQ has been proposed by the chairperson, with AUA proposed by another committee member.
• [41] In deciding to appoint BCHQ, I have considered that it has the support of at least 20 of the owners in the scheme.[10] Although that is not a majority, it is a significant number that weighs in favour of the appointment.
• [42] Some owners may consider the manager selected to be beholden to the person or "side" they were nominated by. However, each BCM should be considered to be independent and is bound to comply with the Code of conduct for body corporate managers found in Schedule 2 of the Act.
• [43] Finally, the chairperson requested that I also vary the Interim Order to appoint BCHQ to act on an interim basis as the BCM for the body corporate. The chairperson, however, is not the applicant and I decline to make that variation. Decisions to engage a new BCM must be made by the body corporate in the way provided for in the legislation.[11]
• [44] For the above reasons, I have cancelled the Interim Order and issued new interim orders to appoint BCHQ as Interim Administrator to perform the functions, and with the powers, of secretary until a new secretary is appointed by members of the body corporate at an EGM. I have also made an interim order about the remuneration to be paid by the body corporate to BCHQ for its services as Interim Administrator.

• [45] I have varied the Interim Order in the way and for the reasons given above.
• [46] I will also make some additional observations. When it sent its resignation to the body corporate on 9 December 2025, the BCM I originally appointed as Interim Administrator explained "the level of hostility directed towards our office has escalated to a point where it is no longer commercially viable" for the BCM to continue to provide services to Monte Carlo. When advising it intended to cease providing services immediately, the BCM also observed it was required "to ensure a safe working environment for its employees and cannot do so when Committee members are verbally attacking its staff on a continuous basis."
• [47] These comments are concerning. If the assertions are true, they indicate at least some of the committee members have gone beyond strongly held views and disagreement and are possibly behaving in a way that breaches the code of conduct for committee voting members.
• [48] In closing, I repeat my reminder from the Interim Order to 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. 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.[12] The dispute may then be resolved by an adjudicator with the benefit of submissions from all affected parties.

[1] See Interim Order at [11]-[13] and sections 226, 228 and 276 of the Act

[2] See generally Section 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[3] See Sections 276(4)(a) and (b) of the Act

[7] In the circumstances, I declined requests for substantial extensions of time to make a submission.

[8] This proposal is supported by an owner of 17 lots in the scheme.

[10] I have considered the objections of some committee members to the appointment of BCHQ. Those objections are based on allegations that a former employee of BCHQ engaged in improper conduct. Where the allegations do not relate the employees who will provide services to the body corporate, I do not consider those allegations are relevant to my decision which BCM to appoint.

[11] See e.g., Sections 74 and 135 of the Standard Module