Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020

The applicant lot owner's representative was recently removed from the committee by a vote of owners at an extraordinary general meeting. The applicant disputes the validity of that EGM and seeks an interim order to replace the committee with an administrator until the validity of the EGM is decided by final orders.

The question is whether an interim order appointing an administrator is appropriate in the circumstances.

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 279

• [1] Affinity Capital Pty Ltd (applicant) is the owner of lot 11 in the community titles scheme Mount Whitsunday CTS 37885. It seeks orders against the Body Corporate for Mount Whitsunday (respondent) in a dispute about an extraordinary general meeting decision to remove a member of the body corporate's committee.
• [2] The applicant is represented in the application by the company's director, Carolyn Lewis, and she was until recently the committee chairperson and secretary. Ms Lewis was purportedly voted out of office by owners at an extraordinary general meeting held 8 August 2025 (8 August EGM). The applicant disputes the validity of that EGM and hence the decisions to remove Ms Lewis from those committee positions.
• [3] Two other applications involving these parties are running concurrently with this application, in which Adjudicator Tsui has made decisions on interim order applications.[1] Those applications also concern the composition of the committee but do not concern the 8 August EGM, and so are not directly relevant to this application.
• [4] In this application, the applicant seeks interim and final orders. Presently for my determination is the request for an interim order to appoint an administrator in place of the current committee, until the next annual general meeting in 2026 or otherwise a final determination of this application. The applicant says the administrator appointment is necessary to stabilise governance of the body corporate.
• [5] In due course, I will consider the application for the following final orders:
  1. declaring void the 8 August EGM
  2. declaring void all resolution passed at the 8 August EGM
  3. to call another general meeting to hold another committee election
  4. requiring that the new general meeting be conducted according to certain listed protocols
  5. that if any non-compliant communication is issued through official channels, the returning officer or Administrator must, within 24 hours, send a neutral corrective circular to all owners identifying the non-compliance and confirming the protocol

1. that the following persons are precluded from being nominated for, or elected to, the committee at the meeting convened under Order 3: Ian Cohen; John O'Neill; Josh Woodhouse; Regan Fleming; Robert Borg; Ron Cromb
2. noting the applicant's undertaking that she will not nominate for, or accept appointment to, the committee at the meeting convened pursuant to Order 3, in the interests of resolving the dispute

• [6] In short, the applicant's grounds for the final orders are that the 8 August EGM was improperly conducted and accordingly the outcome does not reflect the owners' preferences.
• [7] I have declined to make the requested interim order, firstly because I am not satisfied it is appropriate order to make at an interlocutory stage, and in any event because I am not satisfied an administrator is necessary in the present circumstances.

• [8] An adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[2] Accordingly, an applicant must satisfy the adjudicator that serious and irreparable harm would be caused without the interim order.
• [9] The Commissioner may refer a matter for adjudication of an interim order application without affected persons having an opportunity to make submissions on it.[3] However, if time and circumstances permit, an adjudicator will often invite submissions on the interim order application from affected parties. Given there did not seem to be a need to decide the interim order application without delay, I invited submissions, and in circumstances where the composition of the committee is in dispute, I invited submissions from all owners.

• [10] The applicant seeks the appointment of an administrator, on an interim basis, with the following tasks and powers:

'1. Exercise all powers and functions of the committee under the Act and regulation module.

2. Act as committee liaison for service contractors and work with the body corporate manager to ensure compliant administration.

3. Preserve, access and produce records on request, including voting/proxy materials and mailing lists relevant to meetings.

4. Convene and conduct the fresh EGM to elect a committee (as sought in the final orders), including issuing the notice/agenda, receiving nominations and votes, and chairing the meeting.

5. Apply the neutral communications protocol and corrective circular measure described in the final orders, and ensure equal, simultaneous and neutral communications to all owners.

6. Make ordinary and necessary decisions for proper administration; refer material or unusual expenditure to owners where appropriate.'

• [11] The applicant's submissions in support of the interim administrator appointment are:

¾ At the 28 July meeting, a majority of owners voted to remove the committee, but that decision is currently stayed.

¾ The subsequent on 8 August EGM, conducted with serious procedural defects, has compounded uncertainty and created competing claims of legitimacy.

¾ An independent, neutral Administrator is urgently needed to stabilise governance pending the application's final determination.

¾ These interim orders preserve the status quo and prevent irreversible steps while the application for final orders, declaring the 8 August meeting and its resolutions void and directing a fresh election, is determined.

• − the applicant will be displaced from her elected roles as Chairperson and Secretary without a fair process;
• − the disputed committee may make binding decisions, enter contracts, and spend Body Corporate funds without proper authority; and
• − unwinding such actions later would be chaotic, costly, and in some cases impossible.

¾ This harm goes to the heart of lawful governance, not merely financial loss.

¾ If the interim order is made, prejudice to the Body Corporate is minimal. A neutral Administrator ensures necessary administration continues without interruption and protects the scheme from disputed or unauthorised acts. Any concern about delay can be managed by the Administrator's ordinary decision-making powers and, where appropriate, by promptly convening a general meeting for owner endorsement of urgent or material decisions

• [12] I have also taken into account a further submission and document, received from the applicant on 1 September 2025, being a flying minute to committee members to vote on whether to engage lawyers to advise on a submission in response to this interim order application, and the applicant and Ms Lewis say in that regard:

¾ Misrepresentation of my applications: The explanatory notes state that this is my third application, which is false. This repeated misrepresentation is slanderous and demonstrates the committee's willingness to distort facts to discredit me.

¾ Misleading comments on the administrator's term: The committee asserts that the administrator's appointment will last until March 2026. That is the maximum timeframe only. The true intent of my application is for an administrator to oversee the holding of a fair and lawful EGM, free from the committee's derogatory conduct and free from the influence of a partial body corporate manager who currently handles votes and communications.

¾ Pattern of improper conduct: Instead of addressing matters transparently, the committee repeatedly diverts to legal expenditure from owners' funds - seeking solicitors' advice on every issue. This is not responsible governance. Their role is to act impartially and in the interests of all owners, not to perpetually fight owners using body corporate money.

¾ Urgency of intervention: The current pattern of behaviour - misrepresentation, manipulation of lot owners, and misuse of funds for adversarial purposes - makes clear that the body corporate cannot function effectively or fairly under the present committee. The administrator's role is necessary to restore integrity and ensure lawful processes are followed.

• [13] Five submissions supportive of the application were received from other owners, providing grounds similar to those put forward by the applicant.
• [14] The submission received from the rest of the committee opposes the administrator appointment. I will not go into detail here about those matters, for reasons which will become apparent from the following. It suffices to say that the submission paints a substantially different picture of recent events in the scheme's administration, and Ms Lewis's part in that.

• [15] I will firstly describe recent events in the scheme's administration which are referred to by the applicant and which are somewhat related to this application.
• [16] The 28 July 2025 EGM, referred to in the applicant's submissions, was called by Ms Lewis in her committee member capacity purportedly at the request of owners[4] and without the committee's agreement, and purportedly resulted in resolutions to replace committee members. It is the subject of application 0717-2025, brought by the Body Corporate against Ms Lewis, in which Adjudicator Tsui has made an interim order that effectively stays implementation of motions passed at that meeting. The Adjudicator expressed the preliminary view, albeit subject to further consideration at the final determination stage, that the 28 July 2025 EGM notice issued by Ms Lewis failed to comply with the statutory requirements to such an extent that voters' participation in the meeting and the outcome of the motions were likely to be materially affected.[5]
• [17] The other application presently with Adjudicator Tsui, 0705-2025, was brought by this applicant against the Body Corporate, seeking final orders to remove the committee members and to invalidate the committee's decision to engage lawyers for the purpose of advising on application 0717-2025. The applicant also sought an interim order that the body corporate be restrained from making any payment to those lawyers. The adjudicator dismissed that interim order application, commenting that, in her preliminary view, there appears to be little merit to that application.[6]
• [18] I turn now to the merits of this interim order application.
• [19] My main concern is that, in my view, an administrator appointment is not appropriate to be made by interim order, that is, until a final determination of the underlying application. An administrator appointment in effect involves a mix of mandatory injunctive orders, for example that the administrator undertake certain tasks, and declaratory orders, for example that the administrator has the powers of the committee. An interim order should ordinarily do no more than maintain the status quo until a final determination of the application and, for that reason, interim mandatory injunctions (as opposed to restraining injunctions) are rarely made.[7] I do not agree with the applicant that an administrator appointment would maintain the status quo; on the contrary the appointment would disturb it. Further, a declaratory order must be final, not interim, in nature; there is no such thing as an interlocutory or interim declaration.[8] I have previously appointed an administrator at an interlocutory stage in an interim order application,[9] but that was in very unusual circumstances in that the appointment was made at the request of all the affected parties and was necessary to quell further disputation until an impending EGM could be held. This case is not at all similar.
• [20] Regardless, I will go on to comment on whether an appointment might nonetheless be appropriate.
• [21] Grounds for an administrator appointment were considered in Surace v Commisso.[10] Based on that and other decisions,[11] and the implications of the legislation, it is well-settled that appointing an administrator should be a last resort. It is a serious step because it takes responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the body corporate out of the hands of the committee and the members and vests it in the administrator. Typically, there will need to be evidence that the body corporate is so dysfunctional that it cannot operate properly within the statutory framework, or that there is financial malpractice or undue oppression in the conduct of the body corporate.
• [22] The 8 August EGM minutes record that motion 2, to remove Ms Lewis as chairperson and secretary, was passed by 17 votes in favour to 10 against, and motions 3, 4 and 5, to appoint replacement members and another ordinary member were passed by the same number of votes. Motions 6 to 16, proposed to remove other current committee members and to appoint new members, were all defeated by reasonably clear margins. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the body corporate does not have a committee capable of undertaking its duties at least until the committee's composition is resolved through these applications.
• [23] The applicant is also concerned that the 8 August EGM result is not a true reflection of voters' intentions, or what would have been their intentions were they properly informed about certain matters. The respondent submits, and I agree, that 27 votes from 33 lots is a high voter turnout, and accordingly it cannot be said that the result is not indicative of owners' overall preference. Further, 17 votes in favour to 10 against is an unequivocal indicator of that preference.
• [24] I am therefore not satisfied that the result 'has compounded uncertainty and created competing claims of legitimacy', nor that an 'independent, neutral Administrator is urgently needed to stabilise governance', as the applicant would have me believe.
• [25] The applicant describes a number of committee actions it disagrees with, for example spending money on getting legal advice. The applicant's submissions on that and other matters do not convince me there is systemic financial malpractice or undue oppression occurring.
• [26] I also do not accept the applicant's submission that the administrator appointment would cause little prejudice or inconvenience to the body corporate. As the respondent points out, the appointment would have the effect of depriving owners of the legislated right to administer the scheme's affairs and, further, there would be an irrecoverable and a not-insubstantial cost of the administrator's fees.
• [27] Nor do I accept that the applicant's nominee's position on the committee is a relevant interest or right to be protected. While an owner is entitled to nominate for committee election, and a committee member is entitled to take part in committee work (subject to certain matters), in my view a committee member ultimately serves not as of right, but at the indulgence of their constituency, which is the owners.
• [28] If in fact the disputed committee makes binding decisions in the meantime, I cannot see that is a relevant harm, either, given there is no evidence that the committee is incapable of making lawful decisions without Ms Lewis. Further, until such time as an adjudicator decides otherwise, the current committee's decisions are prima facie lawful.
• [29] Accordingly, I do not agree that an administrator appointment would cause no harm in itself or prevent other imminent harm.

• [30] The applicant bears the onus of satisfying me that orders are warranted. Even if it were appropriate to appoint an administrator at an interlocutory stage, in all of the circumstances I am not convinced that the current composition of the committee does not reflect overall the owners' wishes, nor am I convinced that the committee cannot function, at least until a final determination of this application or of application 0717-2025, if the result of the 28 July 2025 EGM is allowed to stand.
• [31] I will therefore dismiss the application for interim orders.
• [32] I will also comment on the application for final orders. I have an open mind on requested final orders 1 to 3, but there is no prospect of me making requested final orders 4 to 7, simply because they are not orders within my power or otherwise appropriate to make. It is a matter for the applicant whether it wishes to proceed further with this application, but it ought it be aware that if an application is dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance, an adjudicator may order the applicant to pay other parties' costs, up to $2,000.[12]
• [33] The application will now be returned to the Commissioner for case management of the final order application.

[1] Mount Whitsunday [2025] QBCCMCmr 259 (28 July 2025); Mount Whitsunday [2025] QBCCMCmr 260 (28 July 2025)

[5] Mount Whitsunday [2025] QBCCMCmr 259 at [25]

[6] Mount Whitsunday [2025] QBCCMCmr 260 at [19]

[7] Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (J.D. Heydon, M.J. Leeming, P.G. Turner) (Fourth Edition) (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002) at [21-395]; see for eg Bingham & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores P/L [2003] QCA 402 at [106]-[108]

[8] Graham Barclay Oyster Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 402, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [128]

[9] 211 Ron Penhaligon Way Offices [2025] QBCCMCmr 183

[11] See also Duncan and The Owners Of 16 Melville Parade, South Perth Strata Plan 18919 [2025] WASAT 45 and cases referred to therein.