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

REASONABLENESS - where a lot owner sought approval (required by a BY-LAW) to make an IMPROVEMENT to her lot, whether committee acted reasonably in deciding to refuse approval.

Act, ss 59, 94(1)(b), 100(5), 280

1. The committee acted unreasonably in refusing to grant approval for an improvement to Lot 90, proposed by its owner, pursuant to the application made on 16 March (with further requested information provided on 27 March) and refused by a vote outside of a committee meeting, communicated to the applicant by email from the body corporate manager on 31 March 2025 and recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting held on 14 May 2025.
2. The committee is deemed to have approved the owner of Lot 90's application to make an improvement to her lot, subject to the conditions contained in the application and by-law 9.
3. Within 7 days, the body corporate must reimburse Anastasia Glover $220.60, being the fees she paid for her conciliation and adjudication applications.

• [1] Anastasia (Sia) Glover, owner and occupier of lot 90, brings this application against the body corporate disputing the committee's refusal to approve her request to install a custom timber structure in her courtyard (on her patio). She argues the committee's refusal was unreasonable. She seeks orders that she be granted approval for the structure and also reimbursement from the body corporate for the conciliation ($110.30) and adjudication ($110.30) application fees she has paid.

• [2] Moorooka Links was established in April 2010 with the registration of Survey Plan 210721, a building format plan of subdivision. It contains 119 lots in a development comprising a mixture of 2-storey townhouses with common walls in 4 buildings; and apartments in 2, 5-storey buildings. Lot 90 is a 2-storey townhouse in Building B, which contains only lots 90, 91[1] and 119. Lot 90 has a ground floor area of 100m2, including an 18m2 patio at the North-West end of the lot. A 73m2 area of common property which lot 90 has been granted exclusive use of as a courtyard[2], surrounds lot 90 on the North and West sides of the lot to the scheme boundaries and on the Eastern side, to the boundary with lot 119 and to the South, in line with the entry to the lot. There is a gate in the fence on the Northern boundary of the scheme, enabling direct pedestrian access from Hamilton Road to the exclusive use courtyard of lot 90.
• [3] Submissions in response to the application were sought from the committee and all owners (excluding the applicant). 3 submissions were received: 2 from owners and 1 from the committee. The applicant inspected the submissions and provided a reply. By email on 3 November 2025, I requested from the committee the minutes of any committee or general meetings held since 26 February 2025. That information was provided by email on 4 November 2025.

• [4] The applicant says she wishes to install an enclosed custom timber structure, effectively creating an enclosed and weather-proofed section in my outdoor area. The following details are provided:
  • Will be placed on the paved area (under the pre-existing patio roof) on top of the tiles and within the patio frame
  • Is a separate structure (not a renovation) and therefore temporary (able to be uninstalled/removed), fixed to the ground to ensure safety/security
  • Framed in treated timber, on a treated pine base of 2.85m x 3.25 m, with pine cladding that is painted to match the current house, so is in line with the aesthetics of the complex
  • Design and installation by a licensed carpenter (Centaur Carpentry Pty Ltd) and licensed electrician (Fallon Solutions), with all necessary insurances, meeting all safety requirements.
  • Skillion roof (flat with slight angle) to sit below the current patio roof and be made from plywood
  • Internal walls and flooring will be particle board and insulation included; window and double doors for accessibility
  • Estimated cost to design, build, paint, deliver and install is $15,625
  • Installation will take approximately 2.5 days as the product is pre-fabricated
  • Rubbish or debris will be minimal. Contractor is responsible for removal of any rubbish or debris.
  • Purpose is to create a usable personal space (for yoga, meditation, dance, etc) that cannot be impacted by the weather, and can be used without any negative impact on neighbours.
  • Offered to install dark grey outdoor blinds (as has been previously approved for other owners) if viewed as visually obtrusive.
• [5] The area on which the proposed improvement is to be installed appears to be entirely within the boundaries of lot 90 (ie on the ground floor tiled/paved patio, under the existing patio roof line). The applicant says the area cannot be seen from the road.
• [6] Apart from compliance with any applicable by-laws, there is no requirement for an owner to seek body corporate approval for any improvements proposed to be made wholly within the boundaries of their lot.

• [7] The community management statement (CMS) for a community titles scheme is binding on the body corporate and each member of the body corporate, as if it included mutual covenants to observe its provisions and as if each person bound by it has signed the CMS under seal.[3] By-laws, which (among other things) may regulate the use and enjoyment of lots and common property, appear in a scheme's CMS and therefore bind bodies corporate and all members. Section 94(1)(b) of the Act specifically requires a body corporate to enforce the by-laws.
• [8] My perusal of the current CMS recorded on 8 July 2015 reveals the following by-law, which relevantly provides:

9. Renovation, Improvement of a Lot or Common Property

9.1 Subject to By-law 8.2[4] an owner or occupier must not make, or permit, any structural alteration or external addition, renovation, and any improvement to any Lot or Common Property nor do anything to vary the external appearance of the building without the prior written consent of the Body Corporate Committee, and must observe the applicable provisions of the Act for making of improvements.

9.1.1 For bylaw 9.1 this shall include any alterations to gas, water or electrical installations, the installation of any external blinds, fence, pergola, screen, awning, air conditioning system or other structure or outbuilding of any kind

9.1.3 Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld.

9.2 In giving its consent to any improvement the Body Corporate may:

• 9.2.1 obtain advice from consultants; and
• 9.2.2 recover the costs of obtaining advice from consultants from the person seeking the Body Corporate's consent.
• 9.3 Any structural alteration of external addition, renovation, and any improvement made or sought by an owner or occupier must be maintained in a state of good condition and repaired by the owner or occupier unless the Body Corporate resolves to the contrary by special resolution in general meeting; and must comply with all requirements.
  • 9.4 The Committee may give written notice to an owner or occupier or a Lot requiring that the improvements be put in a state of good condition and repair (including where necessary, renewal, replacement or removal of the whole or part thereof) and if such notice has not been complied with to the reasonable satisfaction of the Committee within 14 days of the date of that notice, the Committee may, in its absolute discretion, cause the improvements to be put in such a state or the obligations under these by-laws to be carried out in accordance with the notice and the owner or occupier (as the case may be) will forthwith pay the costs incurred or payable by the Body Corporate in that regard on demand.
• 9.5 In making an improvement, renovation or alteration to a Lot an owner or occupier must:
  • 9.5.1 rectify any damage sustained to the Common Property;
    • 9.5.2 not remove or interfere with any load bearing wall or support without the Body Corporate' s consent;
    • 9.5.3 allow the Body Corporate to inspect the Lot and give to it, upon request, any plans and specifications it considers necessary to enable it to give its approval.
• 9.6 For the purpose of this by-law "improvements" includes walls, windows, garage roller doors, screens, gates, walkways, paths, driveways, yard, landscaping, garden, plants and irrigation, and drainage facilities located within a Lot or Common Property.
• [9] It is clear from by-law 9.1 that body corporate permission (via the committee) is required for the applicant's proposed improvement (however it is variously described by the applicant, the committee and each of the 2 submitting owners) to her lot. By-law 9.1.3 specifically states that permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. In any event, section 100(5) of the Act requires the committee to act reasonably in making a decision. That includes in making decisions on whether to give approval for improvements to lots pursuant to the by-laws.
• [10] The primary issue in dispute is whether the committee failed to act reasonably when it decided not to approve the applicant's request to make an improvement to her lot.

• [11] Where a committee is considering whether to grant permission for an improvement to a lot in accordance with the by-laws, its role is to consider the interests of the person seeking approval, as well as how the improvement could affect other owners or the scheme property.
• [12] The committee must decide each request based on the circumstances and in the context of the particular scheme. It must consider relevant, evidence-based factors and exclude irrelevant ones.[5] Where a committee has genuine fact-based concerns, the committee should consider whether those can be overcome or sufficiently addressed by the imposition of conditions.[6]
• [13] When a committee's decision-making is challenged, the role of the adjudicator is to evaluate whether the committee ignored or failed to genuinely consider any relevant factors, or whether it acted on irrelevant factors.[7] The role of the adjudicator is not to weigh the factors nor substitute their own views or conclude that another decision would have been more reasonable.[8]
• [14] The test for whether a decision is reasonable is objective.[9]
• [15] Where a committee fails to act reasonably in making a decision, an adjudicator may intervene to make an order that is just and equitable, including giving effect to a motion that was not passed_._
• [16] Importantly, the person challenging a decision bears the onus of substantiating that the committee failed to act reasonably. They must show, for example, that the decision lacked a logical basis or plausible justification.

• [17] The applicant's first application was considered at a committee meeting on 26 February 2025. The minutes of that meeting record that the motion to approve the application was defeated with 7 votes in favour and nil against. It was noted that the committee had requested that the owner submit a complete application in order that it be given due consideration.
• [18] The applicant made her second application on 16 March 2025, using the "Renovation Application" form provided by the body corporate manager and including the quote from Wills Cubbies & Cabins dated 17 February 2025 and a photo of the patio area in which the structure was to be installed.
• [19] The committee requested further information as to exactly where the cubby was to be erected and how high it was (communicated to the applicant by email from the body corporate manager on 26 March 2025) and expressed concern about the visual impact. The applicant provided further information including photos of the location and timber cladding to be used, and offering to install external blinds, by email to the body corporate manager on 27 March 2025.
• [20] By email on 31 March 2025 from the body corporate manager, the applicant was advised that the committee had voted 4-3 against approving the application.
• [21] By email to the body corporate manager on the same date, the applicant asked the committee for specific reasons for the decision.
• [22] The applicant asked the committee to reconsider her application, by submitting a motion for committee consideration on 5 April 2025.
• [23] The body corporate manager emailed on 10 April 2025 confirming that it had been sent to the committee and also providing the following general response as to why the committee refused the application:

From the details of the quote the proposed installation appears a habitable space and could be used

as a bedroom or living space. Even with a ceiling height under 2.4 m it has enough openings and

ventilation as well as electrical connections and insulation to be considered habitable.

If a living space was added to the unit then the body corporate fees should be increased accordingly. The application doesn't consider that process.

Approving this installation would also set a precedent for future applications to enclose verandas etc. though out the complex. These spaces were never designed to enclosed and if they were this may cause issues with the establishing maintenance responsibilities and insurance for the body corporate in the future.

• [24] The body corporate manager emailed the applicant on 14 April 2025 advising that the committee had reviewed but advised that they did not wish to change their votes.
• [25] Minutes of a committee meeting held on 14 May 2025 record the following:

DEFEATED The Committee defeated the motion to approve Lot 90's application for the installation of an external structure in their courtyard.

It was further noted that the owner of lot 90 had made a conciliation application to the office of the the Body Corporate Commissioner in relation to this matter and that the Committee would not attend conciliation with the owner as a majority decision had already been reached and clear rationale provided to the lot owner for the rejection of the application.

• [26] According to the 10 April 2025 email noted above, the committee had concerns that the proposed installation appeared to be a habitable space and could be used as a bedroom or living space and that if a living space was added to the unit, then the body corporate fees should be increased accordingly, and the application didn't consider that process. This concern was re-iterated in the committee's submission.
• [27] Margot Tidey, owner of lot 83, who made a submission strongly supporting the committee's decision, details the same concern. She says the improvement clearly constitutes a house extension or separate dwelling; it is an enclosed weatherproof fully habitable room of standard bedroom size of 2.85 x 3.25m = 9.26m2 floor area with a standard 2.3m ceiling height, insulation, internal walls, ceiling and flooring, electrical conduits, skillion roof and French doors with a construction cost of $15,625.
• [28] The owner of lot 83 says the proposed structure is permanent not temporary. She asks 'How would the body corporate legally enforce removal of a property improvement it approved?' It could not. This makes it a permanent structure. The applicant's stated intention to remove the structure at an unspecified time in the future is unacceptable and not legally binding.
• [29] Dale Pitman, owner of lot 77, agrees. He strongly objects to approval for the structure being granted. He thinks it's unfair to define the structure as temporary. He says most buildings are temporary with the right tools.
• [30] The applicant says installing a structure that could be considered 'habitable' is not in direct contravention of any by-laws. She undertakes that the structure will not be leased, rented or otherwise used as a habitable space. She says it is a recreational space for use by the current members of the household and their guests. There is no intention for the space to be used as a bedroom or for it to be otherwise occupied overnight.
• [31] The applicant says the nature of the proposed structure being a "habitable room" is not reasonable grounds for refusal given that the specifications have been provided transparently throughout the process and the committee acknowledges that the intended use of the space is "as a private recreational space".
• [32] As the structure is not attached to the exterior walls of the existing dwelling and has been designed specifically to be demountable (dismantled for reinstallation in a new location), she has consistently referred to the structure as temporary.
• [33] The applicant refutes the committee's suggestion that the structure will be used as a habitable space. Even if it were to be so used, she says that fact alone is not an objectively reasonable basis to refuse to grant approval.
• [34] I agree with the applicant that whether the proposed improvement constitutes a permanent or temporary habitable space is not, in and of itself, a relevant consideration. It does not constitute an objectively reasonable basis to refuse to grant approval.

• [35] The committee raised concerns in its submission that the addition of an enclosed space would enhance the functionality and possibly the value of lot 90 without any adjustment to the owner's contribution to shared costs.
• [36] The owner of lot 83 submits it would be reasonable to expect that the structure will increase the property value of lot 90 enormously because it will be bigger by one whole room. She says this would have to be accounted for by the body corporate in the by-laws and property value and fees. The feasibility and costs of doing this is not known.
• [37] The applicant says the lot entitlements were established at the commencement of the scheme and do not include capacity to vary for improvements. However, the by-laws contemplate improvements, do not stipulate changes in contributions after any renovation or improvement to a property, and do stipulate that approvals should not be unreasonably withheld.
• [38] She says the explanation from the body corporate fails to refer to any by-laws and to acknowledge the temporary nature of the structure, which is inconsistent with the reasoning provided.
• [39] The applicant accepts that the proposed improvement does benefit the occupants of unit 90 but denies that it adversely affects any other users of the complex. The temporary nature of the structure confirms that it will not substantially or permanently change the integrity of unit 90 or its value.
• [40] The applicant notes that the committee has previously granted approval for fixtures such as outdoor blinds and air-conditioning units, which could be deemed as adding value to a property, and in those cases did not deny the improvement because of a required adjustment to the owner's body corporate contributions. She says that if the primary concern is that this will substantially and unfairly raise the property value of lot 90, she will confirm that upon the sale of her lot, she will not include the structure as a fitting to be part of the sale. The design of the structure is that it is capable of being dismantled and reinstalled elsewhere in the future.
• [41] I agree with the applicant that the fact that the improvement might increase the value of lot 90 is an irrelevant consideration, as is any suggestion that any increase in value should be reflected in contribution or interest schedule lot entitlements, which were set at the scheme's establishment. Neither the contribution nor interest schedule lot entitlements for this scheme are equal. Lot 90 has a contribution schedule lot entitlement (CSLE) of 74 and an interest schedule lot entitlement (ISLE) of 96 (one of the highest in the scheme)[10].

• [42] The committee submitted that approving the installation raised concerns that townhouse and ground floor apartment owners might build their own versions of similar enclosed structures and that this could alter the uniform appearance and architectural consistency of the scheme. It says such precedent may lead to a proliferation of non-standard additions, diminishing the visual cohesion intended by the original design and complicating future approval decisions.
• [43] The owner of lot 77 thinks it's unfair to allow the construction of this structure without allowing, for example, units to enclose their balcony areas or ground floor units to install similar structures. He says this would change the aesthetic of the complex and while this specific request would have a limited effect on this, it would be unfair to apply different rules to each unit.
• [44] The owner of lot 83 agrees. She says allowing the structure may set a precedent. It would negatively impact the character of the scheme. It will make the building bulkier by reducing the setback from the street frontage.
• [45] The applicant replies that the proposed area the structure is to be installed in is the personal courtyard / garden area lot 90, which is surrounded by a 1.8 metre high fence.
• [46] The applicant says each owner has the right to submit a request for renovation or improvement to the committee. Each application is considered on its own merits, therefore in that regard, it is a fair process.
• [47] Lot 90 is unique in the complex in relation to the outdoor space; only two other units enjoy a similar-sized outdoor space. It is most likely that these units have a premium that was already applied on purchase. The applicant says the decision to approve this temporary structure should not be equated with permanent changes to an outdoor area or balcony (such as enclosure) as that is a substantive and permanent change to the building structure, which would be considered a fixture.
• [48] As to the improvement changing the aesthetic of the complex, the applicant notes that shade sails / outdoor blinds which are also fixtures have been approved for other units in the complex. This too changes the aesthetic of the complex. Further, the proposed improvement is only visible within the confines of lot 90 and its exclusive use area and therefore will not affect the aesthetic of the complex.
• [49] Regarding consistency with scheme appearance and use, the applicant notes the committee has indicated that other residents may make application for a like structure which may be incompatible with the aesthetic of the scheme. She notes that there is no such argument that her proposed improvement adversely affects the aesthetic of the scheme as she has gone to some length to ensure that the visual appearance of the proposed improvement is sympathetic to the current structure. Should any future applications not be aesthetically sympathetic, this would be a basis for future applications to be rejected. She says to refuse her application because of potential future applications that are not aesthetically sympathetic would be an unreasonable refusal under clause 9.1.3 of the by-laws.
• [50] I agree with the applicant. Although what the applicant's proposed improvement would look like is a relevant factor for the committee to consider, the concern that future applications which may not be aesthetically sympathetic might be made, is purely hypothetical.[11] I also note by-law 29.1 which provides that all balconies and terraces[12] must remain unenclosed with no shutters, glazing, louvers or similar permanent structures. There have been no specific objections raised with the aesthetics of the applicant's proposed improvement. The owner of lot 77 acknowledges that this specific request would have a limited effect on scheme aesthetics. It is almost entirely obscured from view except from within lot 90 and its exclusive use courtyard.

• [51] The committee submits that approval of such structures introduces ambiguity over long-term insurance liability and maintenance responsibilities. If these structures become damaged or affect surrounding common property, it says there is a risk that the body corporate would be drawn into responsibility disputes.
• [52] The applicant says she has confirmed with the Brisbane City Council (BCC) that the improvement is not considered an extension and as such is not considered a "part of the property" which would create a liability for the body corporate. Should the committee require her to enter into a binding agreement confirming that the insurance and maintenance of the proposed improvement is her sole responsibility, she is happy to do so.
• [53] Further, the applicant says that it would be a condition of approval that she accept responsibility for the improvement including insurance and maintenance. By-law 9.3 provides that "...any improvement made...must be maintained in a state of good condition and repaired by the owner..."
• [54] The applicant says the location of the proposed improvement does not impede access to the structure that is under the control of the body corporate. The only impediment may be underground works required under the current footprint of Unit 90 and if so, the structure is capable of being demounted during the works in question. That is the temporary nature of the improvement. There is no other impact to the access to the dwelling or the area of the body corporate's responsibility.
• [55] The proposed structure is made from treated pine and is located on an existing tiled footing. The applicant is responsible for all maintenance including pest control. She says there is no impediment to termite inspections by the body corporate.
• [56] To the extent that maintenance and insurance concerns were relevant, they were adequately addressed by the applicant, by-law 9.3 (which makes the applicant responsible for maintenance), and by the legislation. Section 192 of the Accommodation Module requires the applicant to give the body corporate details of the nature and value of the improvement if, because of the improvement, the fixtures and fittings forming part of the lot are of a higher standard than the fixtures and fittings of lots generally and the premium for reinstatement insurance required to be taken out by the body corporate is likely to increase. Section 191 of the Accommodation Module allows the body corporate to adjust the contribution payable by an owner (which is generally proportionate to the ISLE of the lot) in a way that fairly reflects the extent to which the premium relates to fixtures and fittings that form part of the lot and are of a higher standard than the fixtures and fittings of lots generally.

• [57] The committee says the applicant submitted multiple versions of her application to the committee over several weeks. The committee requested clarification, including:
  • Location and height of the structure;
  • Visibility and design considerations;
  • Potential use of the structure;
• [58] The committee voted on the revised application and it was defeated by a majority vote (5-2).
• [59] The committee says it followed due process, allowed ample opportunity for the applicant to revise and resubmit her application to address concerns raised, and gave detailed feedback throughout.
• [60] The owner of lot 83 submitted that the information provided by the applicant was insufficient to determine whether the structure could be considered as either a separate dwelling or a stand-alone studio/granny flat or a patio enclosure. She says no 2D plans nor drawings or photos were provided of the position and orientation of the proposed structure under the existing patio, nor its relationship to the yard and street front and boundaries. Further, the impact and provision for water drainage was unclear.
• [61] The applicant replies that on her first application, she provided basic details via email, as the template form was generic and could not initially be accessed. Upon request by the committee, she completed the template form and provided more details, including the full quote outlining the complete fit out and fittings of the structure. She further provided photographs of the specific area in which she is seeking to install the structure on a temporary basis. She has repeatedly indicated that she would provide any further material required and also offered to show the area in person. After the photographs were provided, there was no further request for additional material.
• [62] The applicant says she sought guidance from the body corporate manager over email and phone to ensure wherever possible that her application was complete and that she was providing information which would be of assistance to the committee. Hence the more detailed information that was provided in each iteration of the application.
• [63] She was advised by the body corporate manager that the application was defeated by a vote of 4-3 (by email dated 31 March), not 5-2 as stated by the committee in its submission and recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting of 14 May 2025.
• [64] Regarding due process, the body corporate manager provided general information on applications for improvements, but stated repeatedly that the committee was under no obligation to advise why they had denied the application. She repeatedly requested reasons for the denial so that she could revise and resubmit, but this was not sent to her until after she submitted a request for reconsideration to the committee. The committee advised they did not wish to change their votes, so on that basis the application was not approved.
• [65] The applicant cannot be accused of providing insufficient information in circumstances where there were no further requests for additional material after she provided the photographs in her email of 27 March 2025.

• [66] Although not cited by the committee as reasons for refusal, the owner of lot 83 raises some other concerns in her submission, including the following:
  • Regardless of what the structure is called, it most likely requires BCC planning development approval. No development application or approval was provided by the applicant.
  • The structure would likely negatively impact the provision of daylight and ventilation to existing habitable rooms in the adjoining townhouse.
  • Maintenance of access paths to doorways and windows to the existing building is uncertain. No plan of the exact location of the structure was provided showing access pathways. It may impact fire safety and emergency services access.
  • Noise levels coming from such a structure cannot be regulated because construction standards for sound proofing and building quality would not be the same standard as the original complex itself.
• [67] The applicant responds to these concerns as follows:
  • Due to its proposed use and size, it does not require planning approval from BCC. This has been confirmed directly with the Council. No building permission is required for structures under 10m2.
  • The structure will be installed in the existing outdoor area of the unit which already meets all compliance issues for drainage issues.
  • In respect of fire safety, there is an evacuation route suitable for the size of the building. Further, there is a window that is capable of being an exit route. There are sufficient routes of egress. In respect of changes to the main structure from a fire safety perspective, there remain four egress routes from the main living area to the exterior of the building for safety purposes. There are no hazardous materials that will be stored in the structure; as noted, its uses are inconsistent with the storage of hazardous materials. The space will not be used as a tool shed so again there is no additional risk of flammable items.
  • There are no limitations to the egress routes of adjoining structures, therefore the improvement does not adversely affect any adjoining structure, and therefore does not change the management and fire safety protocols of the body corporate.
  • There is no impediment to the access of emergency services, as there is substantial access to the property. Further, the location of the improvement does not adversely impact emergency services access to any other part of the property under the control of the body corporate.
  • The situation of the improvement on an existing open space, roofed patio will not adversely affect any other unit's access to light, further there is no impact to any common area.
  • As the proposed improvement will be installed on the existing footprint of Unit 90 there is no change to the external footprint of the complex.
  • The proposed improvement is not a separate single dwelling and does not require council approval for development. However, as with all structures, she will be required to meet all building standards within the legislation.
  • Noise will be reduced, as activities will be conducted inside the insulated space rather than out in the open courtyard. In addition, she has raised this with her neighbour at Unit 119 and they have no objection to the proposed improvement.
• [68] To the extent that any of these matters may have formed part of the committee's consideration of the application, I consider that they have been adequately addressed by the applicant.

• [69] The applicant seeks reimbursement of $220.60 for the conciliation and adjudication fees she paid because the committee did not participate in conciliation.
• [70] The committee says it did not intentionally avoid participation and cost recovery should only be ordered where the respondent's conduct is unreasonable. The committee maintains it acted fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with its statutory obligations.
• [71] The Act provides that, if asked, an adjudicator may order a respondent to pay the application fees for a conciliation application and adjudication application. This order can only be made if the adjudication application was for the same dispute as a conciliation application that ended because the respondent failed, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the conciliation.[13]
• [72] Those criteria have been met here. Conciliation application 0385-2025 related to the same dispute. The body corporate advised, in writing, that it declined the invitation to attend conciliation on this matter.
• [73] The certificate issued by the conciliator states that "I consider the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate in conciliation."
• [74] I will order reimbursement of $220.60 by the body corporate to the applicant.

• [75] The committee says by-law 9.1.3 does not compel it to approve every request, but to apply reasonable judgement. It says the decision to refuse the applicant's request was based on careful consideration by all 7 committee members. The applicant argues that consent was unreasonably withheld.
• [76] Based on the material before me, I have formed a view that the committee based its decision to refuse the applicant's improvement application on concerns that were either irrelevant; or, if relevant, were adequately addressed by the applicant, by conditions in by-law 9.1, or by the legislation. I am satisfied the committee failed to act reasonably in refusing the applicant's application to make an improvement to her lot.
• [77] I have made orders deeming her improvement application to have been approved and for reimbursement of her conciliation and adjudication application fees as a result of the committee refusing to participate in conciliation without reasonable excuse.

[1] Lot 91 on SP210721 was subdivided into new lot 91 (an area of 10m2 adjacent to the garage on the ground floor) and lot 119 on SP 273914 in July 2015.

[2] By-law 28 grants exclusive of courtyard and balcony area "GC" on the Plan in annexure A to lot 90

[4] Relates to signage and is not here relevant

[5] See Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 @ [42] and [23] "reasonable action is evidence-based and rational."

[8] See Beaches @ [44]; Seabreeze On Reid [2022] QBCCMCmr 246 @ [11]; Casablanca Palms [2020] QBCCMCmr 486 @ [7]

[9] Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99

[10] Only lots 36, 38 and 39 are higher, on an ISLE of 100

[11] See, for example The Atrium Resort [2023] QBCCMCmr 501 @ [12] ("refusal based on merely hypothetical concerns is likely to be unreasonable for the simple reason it is not evidence-based")

[12] "Decks" and "patios" is the terminology used in the registered survey plans