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

MAINTENANCE - whether body corporate has failed to maintain roof in good condition; PROPERTY DAMAGE - responsibility for rectification of damage to lot caused by water ingress

Act, ss 152, 94(2); Standard Module, ss 58, 100(5), 163,180, 192, 211, 281

• [1] Mr Graham and Mrs Catherine Allen, owners of lot 22 since 23 February 2024, bring this 240-page application against the body corporate regarding water penetration and damage to their lot.
• [2] The applicants seek orders compelling the body corporate (at its expense) to engage a qualified roofing contractor (2 are suggested, from whom quotes are provided) to undertake roof repairs as specified in the quotes they provide, and then to assess and repair damage to lot 22 caused by water ingress and roof leaks, including but not limited to:

a) Plaster repairs, painting and remediation of water-damaged ceilings, walls and fixtures; > > b) Mould remediation and treatment; > > c) Any other consequential repairs required to restore lot 22 and any affected common property to the condition it would have been in had the water ingress not occurred.

• [3] Norman Park Manors community titles scheme was established on 19 June 2001 with the registration of Survey Plan 140471, a building format plan of subdivision. It contains 23 lots in 3 multi-storey buildings. Lot 22 is located on Level H of Building C. Above it is a common property roof-top deck area (Area "D"[1] on sketch plan "C"), which by-law 42.4 grants exclusive use of to the proprietors of lot 22.
• [4] Submissions were sought from all owners and the committee. 9 submissions were received. These included one 92-page submission from the committee, 7 from owners who are also committee members, and 1 from an owner who is not a committee member. The applicants inspected each submission and replied by re-submitting each submission, annotated with their comments in red - totalling 356 pages of reply material. The committee inspected the applicants' replies to the submissions and provided further material responding to the applicants' reply to the committee's submission and further emails dated 27 October 2025 and 12 November 2025. Although there is no legislative right for a respondent to inspect and respond to an applicant's reply to its submission, there is nothing preventing it either. I reviewed the material but did not consider it added anything relevant to that which had already been supplied by the committee, inspected, and responded to by the applicants. I have not relied on it in arriving at this decision and did not consider it necessary to provide it to the applicants or invite them to respond to it.
• [5] The material submitted with, and in response to, this application was extremely voluminous and repetitive. Numerous irrelevant issues were raised and addressed in some detail, including: an insurance claim made pursuant to a fire in the internal head of a split system air-conditioner in the main bedroom of lot 22, prior to applicants' ownership; previous maintenance of the exclusive use rooftop area and balcony outside of the main bedroom of lot 23; a BBQ and drinks afternoon (for which around $300 of body corporate funds was spent) following an annual fire drill; an allegedly defective fire entry door for lot 22; use of GPOs (connected to community power supply) to charge an electric vehicle belonging to the owners of lot 22; issues with the functioning of the driveway gate; drink cans blocking a downpipe; and a sink attached to the side of the exclusive use roof-top area of lot 22. This has added significantly to the time taken to peruse the material, identify what is relevant to the issues the subject of this dispute, and ultimately, reach a decision.
• [6] It is evident from the material that the relationship between the applicants and the committee (and to some extent, the body corporate manager) has broken down to the point where the applicants refused to participate in conciliation before this adjudication application was lodged. I consider this unfortunate and a mistake. Conciliation can often resolve issues more quickly than adjudication. Further, in conciliation, those involved can:

a) have a say, listen to one another and suggest solutions > > b) reach their own agreement and not have one decided for them > > c) develop, maintain, (or in this case, repair), good relations - especially important if they live in the same building > > d) gain useful information that might prevent further disputes.

a) Since at least May 2024, they have experienced ongoing water ingress and roof leak issues affecting their lot, resulting in significant damage to the kitchen ceiling and master bedroom. The previous owners of lot 22 had reported water ingress issues in their kitchen ceiling and master bedroom in 2018. > > b) The applicants have repeatedly notified the body corporate and body corporate manager of the water ingress, provided photographic and video evidence, and granted access for inspection on multiple occasions. > > c) The body corporate has not engaged a qualified roofing specialist to inspect and repair the roof, instead relying on internal reports that do not address the underlying issues. > > d) The body corporate manager advised the applicants on 27 March 2025 that 'you need to first determine what the cause of the leak is and because the leak is coming from the EU area, you are responsible for the investigations in the first instance.' > > e) The applicants have obtained and provided to the body corporate 2 quotes from certified roofing companies (Certified Roofing and Roof Co Group), both of which identified identical non-compliant defects in the metal roof over lot 22 (incorrect flashing installation and failed silicone around flashings and gutters) with one side impacting the kitchen and the other likely impacting the bedroom and provided a guarantee to fix the leaks. The defects identified do not affect the exclusive use area. > > f) The applicants submitted a formal motion to the secretary on 10 May 2025, proposing that one of the attached quotes be accepted and the necessary repairs be undertaken at the body corporate's expense from the sinking fund. > > g) Despite acknowledging in its own meeting minutes (30 April 2025) that previous inspections have not resolved the leak and that further action is required (including engaging a contractor for immediate inspection after a significant rain event), the body corporate failed to act on the motion as required under section 58 of the Standard Module. > > h) The damage to lot 22 has worsened because of the body corporate's inaction, with increased costs of rectification and ongoing risk to the applicants' property and health.

1. The body corporate has advised that it cannot agree to spend the money quoted as it is obvious it is a relatively minor leak as it has been so difficult to locate.

j) Inspections have taken place days, weeks, and months after storm events. The body corporate has not been in attendance during wet weather to identify the source of a leak. > > k) The sinking fund (with a balance of approximately $246K) can accommodate the quoted costs of the roof repairs.

1. The committee has not provided any action plan to rectify the issues, despite certified roofers providing evidence of multiple defect issues with the roof, a lack of maintenance and a guarantee to fix the leaks.

• [8] The owners of units 1, 7, 9, 14, 16, 20 and 23 (all also current committee members) and 18, made submissions supporting the committee's submission. They believe the body corporate has made appropriate attempts to rectify the issue in a timely manner and work with the applicants to get this done. Further appropriate investigation is necessary.
• [9] Ms Gogolin (lot 1) states after the repairs and inspection in March 2025 the committee have not been able to inspect the roof or ceiling space. At this stage the committee are unable to determine if the repairs have resolved the kitchen leak nor has it received a report of the leak test to the exclusive use area. The committee wish to work with the owners and an appropriate contractor to resolve the reported leaks in the kitchen and bedroom with a logical and cost-effective approach. The causes of the leaks are still undetermined and forging ahead with the quotes provided won't necessarily guarantee the leaks will be fixed as these areas have already been repaired.
• [10] In their reply, the applicants allege the committee has engaged in a deliberate campaign of defamation, intimidation and harassment towards them and the specialist contractors and lawyers, which is contrary to the law and intentionally unreasonable, capricious and spiteful to avoid responsibility. They claim to be victims of 'a targeted campaign of bullying and harassment'. I found no evidence of this, but it is perhaps a sad indictment of the state to which the relationship between the parties has deteriorated.
• [11] I have attempted to identify and address the relevant issues, as best as I could, from amongst the plethora of material (much of it repetitive and irrelevant) submitted.

• [12] Section 152(1) of the Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control the common property and body corporate assets reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners and comply with obligations regarding common property and body corporate assets imposed under the applicable regulation module.
• [13] The Standard Regulation Module includes provisions to the effect that an owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except those parts of the lot that are the body corporate's responsibility.[2] The body corporate is generally responsible for maintaining common property in good and structurally sound condition.[3]
• [14] Where the scheme is created under a building format plan of subdivision (as Norman Park Manors is), the body corporate has additional responsibilities, including maintaining in good condition:

a) Railings, parapets and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property; and > > b) Doors, windows and associated fittings in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property; and > > c) Roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots or common property[4];

a) Foundation structures;

b) Roofing structures providing protection;

c) Essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls[5].

• [15] The legislation provides exceptions, including that a body corporate will not be responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings installed by an occupier for their benefit, or certain types of utility infrastructure that service only one lot.[6]
• [16] Further, an exclusive use by-law is taken, in the absence of other specific provision in the by-law for maintenance and operating costs, to make the owner of the lot to whom exclusive use is given responsible for the maintenance of and operating costs for the part of the common property to which the exclusive use by-law applies.[7] However, if the lot was created under a building format plan of subdivision, in the absence of other specific provision in the by-law, the owner of the lot is not responsible for:

a) maintaining in good condition roofing membranes that: > > 1. are on the part of the common property to which the by-law applies; and

1. provide protection for lots or common property; or

b) maintaining in a structurally sound condition any of the following that are part of a structure that is on the part of the common property to which the by-law applies and is not constructed by or for the owner:

1. foundation structures;
2. roofing structures providing protection;
3. essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls.[8]

Has the body corporate failed to maintain the roof in good condition?

• [17] The applicants claim the body corporate has breached section 152 of the Act by failing to maintain the roof in good condition. They say the roof is common property and the responsibility of the body corporate, notwithstanding their exclusive use of the roof-top deck area. They say the body corporate has an obligation to comply with their submission of their formal motion dated 10 May 2025 and the body corporate's failure to engage a qualified contractor and undertake necessary repairs constitutes a breach of its statutory and community management statement (CMS) obligations.

Roof top deck over which lot 22 has exclusive use

• [18] It is evident that the committee and applicants disagree over the maintenance responsibilities of the roof-top deck over which lot 22 has exclusive use.
• [19] The applicants say the body corporate continues to insinuate that they are obstructing any remedial action by refusing to pay for or organise a flood test on the exclusive use roof-top area. The applicants say the flood test of the exclusive use roof-top deck is a body corporate responsibility - that there is no by-law that requires the owner to maintain the waterproofing membrane of the roof of the building. Further, the applicants say a flood test is contrary to advice of specialist roofing contractors, who have recommended attending to the defects and non-conforming failures of the metal roof with a guarantee to fix the leaks.
• [20] Although not directly relevant to the issues in dispute, I make the following comments for the benefit of both parties.
• [21] By-law 42.6 provides that the Proprietor of a Lot entitled to the right of exclusive use of part of the common property will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of that part of the common property.
• [22] The common property roof-top deck over which lot 22 has exclusive use provides protection for the applicants' lot immediately underneath. By-law 42.6 does not make specific provision for the maintenance of roofing membranes.
• [23] By virtue of section 192(2) of the Standard Module, by-law 42.6 shifts the usual maintenance obligations of the roof-top deck area "D" the subject of by-law 42.4 from the body corporate to the owner of lot 22. However, by virtue of section 192(3)(a) of the Standard Module, it does not extend to maintenance of roofing membranes.[9]
• [24] Queensland Plumbing stated in their report of 17 March 2025 that Flood testing to the upper patio area is recommended as the next step to find the leak entering the bedroom. To date, this has not been done. As such, there is currently no evidence before me that the rooftop deck area (or any roofing membrane associated with it) the subject of by-law 42.4 is not in good condition.
• [25] I disagree with the body corporate/body corporate manager that flood testing of the roof-top deck over which lot 22 has exclusive use should be the responsibility of the applicants in the first instance.[10] Because the body corporate has a legislative responsibility to maintain in good condition roofing membranes that are on the part of the common property to which the by-law applies, and provide protection for lots or common property, I consider it is the body corporate's responsibility in the first instance.

• [26] Both the applicants and the committee agree that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the roof in good condition. The applicants argue the roof is not in good condition. In the application, they say that since at least May 2024, they have experienced ongoing water ingress and roof leak issues affecting their lot, resulting in significant damage to the kitchen ceiling and master bedroom.
• [27] In my view, the material before me does not substantiate the applicants' claims of 'significant' damage to the kitchen ceiling and master bedroom. I have not been provided with any evidence of any damage to the master bedroom (although the applicants claim to have replaced the vertical blinds) and damage to the kitchen ceiling appears limited to a small area where there is some light mould, a couple of cracks and bubbling, and more recently, what the committee describes as some linear damage. There is no evidence of any water-damaged walls and fixtures as the applicants assert. There is no indication that lot 22, or any part of it, is or has at any time been, unhabitable.
• [28] Cathy Allen emailed the body corporate managers on 12 May 2024 stating as follows:

We have discovered an issue on our kitchen ceiling which appears to be a water leak concern following the recent wet weather. While we can't see any water coming in, there is a large lump in the ceiling and mould forming beside that.

3 photos were attached: 1 depicting a blister, cracking and mould on the kitchen ceiling in the vicinity of a downlight; 1 showing just the mould, close up; and 1 showing the blister and cracking, from a different angle, closer up.

• [29] A report by the facilities manager on 27 May 2024, based on an inspection of the roof (without accessing the ceiling space), states that there is no way I can confidently confirm or deny there is a current leak. I can confirm there has been a previous leak on the roof above Cathy's unit which has been repaired and a repair done to the ceiling below.
• [30] An inspection of the roof space was conducted on 4 September 2024 (which the applicants point out was 4 months after their initial report about a leak) by Jack Barry, the new facilities manager. It found no evidence of a roof leak or any evidence of ponding on the back of the plasterboard ceiling sheet where the bumps were located. A water test on the roof was recommended, followed by some general roofing maintenance.
• [31] On 26 September 2024, the committee advised the facilities manager that it had approved a water test on the roof above unit 22's kitchen ceiling and for any necessary repairs to be conducted.
• [32] On 8 October 2024, Cathy Allen emailed the committee, body corporate manager and facilities manager, a short video of the kitchen ceiling which she said showed the lump which is a blister not a hard lump. The video depicts someone pushing the affected area with their thumb, depressing it.
• [33] The applicants provided photos dated 15 October 2024 at 12:04pm of what they say is the internal roof space above the kitchen.
• [34] On 20 November 2024 the facilities manager, Nick Baker, emailed Cathy requesting access to perform an inspection the next day, to take advantage of recent rainfall. The applicants refused access on account of being in the middle of a bathroom renovation which they say precluded access to the roof space.
• [35] On 15 January 2025 the body corporate manager, Tylah Vicca, advised Nick Baker (including the committee members which included Cathy) that Queensland Plumbing had been approved to carry out a leak test on the roof.
• [36] Cathy Allen emailed the committee on 9 March 2025 (during Cyclone Alfred), stating "We have identified an additional roof leak during this wet weather event tonight in our master bedroom near the window, it is not entering from the window or the window frame. It is approx. 30mm away from the window/door frame. The external wall is dry and there is no sign of ingress from the wall. We have videos and photos to support this (see attached) and would appreciate this being attended to urgently to minimise further damage to the structural integrity of the buildings roof and to our property inside. We have a bucket catching the water for now, however this is not a sustainable solution. Additionally we are still waiting for the roof leak above our kitchen to be fixed, reported in May 2024 and considering the current weather we are experiencing we are very concerned. We have been extremely patient and now require your urgent attention to address and fix the leaks and subsequent damage to our property. Also see photos from above the kitchen in the roof space from tonight showing water sitting on the ceiling above our kitchen bench as we previously reported along with the ceiling inside our kitchen progressively deteriorating as a result of not being fixed". Photos and a video of the leak in the bedroom and photos of the internal ceiling space over the kitchen were provided, along with 2 more photos of the kitchen ceiling. The committee concedes the damage to the ceiling had worsened and now included 'linear damage'.
• [37] Until Queensland Plumbing attended in March 2025, the applicants say there had not been a roof specialist attend, and nobody has attended since the applicants identified and reported that there was still a leak in April 2025.
• [38] The body corporate identified a need to trace the leak, however, the applicants say there have been no attempts to be on site following a rain event. The leak has been difficult for the body corporate to trace due to delays in their attendance following notification of issues by the applicants. The body corporate has consistently performed inspections a minimum of four days after notification and insisted upon further inspections weeks and months later i.e. not attending until water had dried up.
• [39] In a committee meeting on 30 April 2025, Bill Turner (secretary) suggested that due to the time lag that had been occurring between a rain event and a roof space inspection, they needed to have a qualified roofer on standby to come to site to perform a roof space inspection the day after or during the rain event, even if the body corporate had to pay them to be on standby.
• [40] In an email on 29 May 2025, Nick Baker advised Cathy Allen that he now had a qualified roofing contractor (Kris from Speciality Roofing) to be on standby.
• [41] The applicants say the facilities manager may have someone on standby, but they have not attended before, during or after a rain event.
• [42] The June 2025 Facility Management Report (provided by the applicants) states, in relation to the unit 22 roof leak 'attend site and complete inspection in the roof space above the kitchen in unit 22; priority - urgent; roofer on standby waiting for next rain event'.
• [43] The applicants appear to base their view that the roof is not in good condition on the 2 quotes they obtained from certified roofing companies (Certified Roofing and Roof Co Group), both of which they say identified identical non-compliant defects in the metal roof over lot 22 (incorrect flashing installation and failed silicone around flashings and gutters) with one side impacting the kitchen and the other likely impacting the bedroom and provided a guarantee to fix the leaks. They say the defects identified do not affect the exclusive use area.
• [44] Certified Roofing Quote JN4855 dated 9 May 2025 for $5,799.15 is for the removal of non-compliant flashings and the supply and install of new flashings. Side A ($2,200) and Side B ($3,369.99) depicted in the photograph attached to the quote are of the metal roof of Level H.
• [45] Roof Co Quote No:31086 dated 1 May 2025 for $3,238.40 was for the following:

METAL ROOF REPAIRS - Service & seal head/ridge/side apron flashings. Supply & install new infill strip between head/ridge/side apron flashing & roof sheets. (per Lm)

METAL ROOF REPAIRS - Supply & install new medium (401-800mm wide) custom made dry pan flashing/s. (per Lm)

ROOF REPLACEMENT - Replace side apron flashing with new custom made side apron flashing. (per Lm)

METAL ROOF REPAIRS - Remove existing roofing screws & rescrew roof sheets &/or flashings using new type 17 roofing screws. (per m2)

ROOF REPAIRS - Replace existing over flashing/s with new custom made over flashing/s. (per Lm)

• [46] Roof Co's quote 31086 is for Side B (possibly explaining the leak above the bedroom) depicted in Certified Roofing's quote (not Side A) but also includes sealing over flashing and infill head apron on a different area, as well as re-screwing an area of roofing (not included in the Certified Roofing quote).
• [47] Roof Co's Quote 31087 dated 1 May 2025 for $2,141.70 is for Side A (explaining the leak above the kitchen) depicted in Certified Roofing's quote but also includes re-screwing an area of roofing (not included in the Certified Roofing quote).
• [48] The committee does not believe the flashings are 'non-compliant' and submits material to suggest the flashings were installed in accordance with approved drawings dated 8 December 2000. It is not satisfied that the work the subject of the quotes is currently necessary. It bases this view on the report of 17 March 2025 by Queensland Plumbing. It wants to inspect the internal ceiling space of lot 22 to establish whether minor works done by Reece Holmes of Queensland Plumbing at the time of the inspection have resolved the leaks complained of.
• [49] Queensland Plumbing performed an inspection with the facilities manager on 13 March 2025.
• [50] Queensland Plumbing's report, dated 17 March 2025, was as follows:

Location: 22/16 Norman Cres, Norman Park QLD 4170

An initial inspection was carried out to the roof and upper patio areas to find a number of

possible issues contributing to the water leaks into the ceiling of the unit. Faults are listed below;

- Incorrect flashing installation (from time of construction).

- Failure of silicone seal around flashings and gutters.

Note - There is no evidence of patching in the ceiling, however water damage was visible the top and underside of the ceiling.

The roof leak above the kitchen may have been sealed during the site visit and recommend

Flood testing to the upper patio area is recommended as the next step to find the leak entering

I am unable to determine when the leak above the kitchen started, however if roof sheet

removal has never been carried out, it has had to potential to occur since the installation of

If further information is required, please contact Reece on 0428 855 688 or at

• [51] A previous version of the report dated 16 March 2025 for the same job number (supplied by the committee) omits the italicised section. There is some suggestion one of the applicants contacted Queensland Plumbing after the inspection and as a result, an amended report was issued.
• [52] Although the applicants and the committee devoted significant effort attempting to establish whether there has been any previous patching of the ceiling in the kitchen of lot 22, I do not consider it relevant to this dispute and have therefore not considered the issue further.
• [53] The applicants say while minor repairs may have been completed by Queensland Plumbing, there are no repairs listed on the report. In an email on 14 April 2025 to the body corporate manager and facilities manager, the applicants say the roof is still leaking above the kitchen.
• [54] An email dated 18 July 2025 from Nicholas Baker of Baker Facilities Management to 2 committee members (Bill and Suzanne) states a hose-based flood test on the roof above the kitchen to test for active leaks was conducted by the technician from Queensland Plumbing during the 13 March 2025 inspection.
• [55] Both parties blame the other for a further inspection by an appropriately qualified person not having yet taken place (although the applicants argue it is unnecessary, insisting that the roof is still leaking, the quotes are sufficient evidence of it not being in good condition, and that the repairs quoted are guaranteed to fix the leaks).
• [56] The applicants dispute that they have denied access. They say facilities management have not made any attempt to attend, delaying this process. The applicants say access has not been refused at all during 2025. There was one occasion in November 2024 during bathroom renovations. There have been no requests by the body corporate, only the owners of lot 22, to have someone attend.
• [57] The committee says it still does not know for certain where the leaks are emanating from. The applicants respond that specialist contractors have identified the roof leak issues and have quoted specific solutions for repairing the roof correctly. The quotes align with faults listed by Queensland Plumbing in their report. The quotes guarantee that the proposed works will fix the leaks. They say the body corporate dismisses the contents of the reports that there are multiple faults and defects on the roof, failing to take action to repair it.
• [58] The committee says although the applicants say the roof is still leaking, they provide no evidence of this.
• [59] Given that Queensland Plumbing reported that the roof leak above the kitchen may have been sealed during the site visit and recommended retesting after the next heavy rainfall, and flood testing the upper patio area as the next step to find the leak entering the bedroom, I am unable to conclude that the body corporate failed to act reasonably in attempting to follow those recommendations, rather than approving either of the quotes obtained independently by the applicants and submitted to the committee for consideration.
• [60] The material before me does not satisfy me that the roof is currently still leaking and/or that the body corporate is failing to maintain the roof in good condition.

• [61] The applicants submitted the following motion on 10 May 2025:

That the body corporate accepts the attached quotes by one of the following certified roofing companies and engages them to perform roof repairs preventing further water ingress and damage, either:

Certified Roofing (ref quote JN 4855) at a cost of $5,799.15; or

Roof Co Group (ref quotes 31087 and 31086) at a cost of $5,380.10

The works are to be paid for out of the sinking fund for roof repairs.

As stated in the quotes, the work will be guaranteed to fix leaks. The above quotes confirm the report by Qld Plumbing following their inspection on 13 March 2025 that the roof has incorrect flashing installation and failure of silicone around flashings and gutters.

• [62] The applicants argue the committee had an obligation to consider their motion and breached section 58 of the Standard Module in failing to do so.
• [63] An owner may submit a motion for consideration by the committee by giving the motion to the secretary.[11] Cathy Allen did this by email to Bill Turner (and the body corporate manager, Tylah Vicca) on 10 May 2025.
• [64] Generally, committee motions must be decided as soon as reasonably practicable, but within 6 weeks of being submitted.[12] If a committee needs more time, it can give the submitter a notice saying that and then decide the motion in no more than a further 6 weeks.[13] If a committee does not decide a motion in those timeframes, it is taken not to have agreed to the motion.[14]
• [65] The notice calling a committee meeting must include an agenda stating the substance of issues to be considered at the meeting. This is different than for general meetings, for which a voting paper which includes each motion in the form it was submitted without amendment, must accompany the notice of meeting.[15]
• [66] There is no record of the committee having considered the substance of the applicant's motion submitted by email on 10 May 2025 within the 6-week period allowed by section 58(3)(a) of the Standard Module. By virtue of section 58(7) of the Standard Module, the applicants' specific motion submitted on 10 May 2025 is taken not to have been agreed to.
• [67] Minutes of a committee meeting held on 2 July 2025 record as follows:

The Strata Manager advised that all other routine correspondence has been dealt with,

however the following items required further Committee action:

4.1. 20.06.2025 - Cooke & Hutchinson Lawyers - Roof Leak above Unit 22

The meeting noted that a letter had been received from Cooke & Hutchinson

Lawyers, dated 20 June 2025, on behalf of the owners of unit 22, claiming that the

Body Corporate has done nothing to resolve a water ingress problem affecting

unit 22, and seeking the Body Corporate's agreement to undertake roof repairs

The meeting further noted that the Body Corporate has been attempting to

resolve this problem for some time and that a letter of response has been provided

The Body Corporate is yet to receive a response from Cooke & Hutchinson Lawyers

• [68] At the 2 July 2025 committee meeting, Cathy Allen requested that the committee acknowledge receipt of the letter from Cooke and Hutchinson Lawyers in the minutes. The letter included the proposed motion.
• [69] I am satisfied that the committee considered the substance of the applicants' motion submitted by email on 10 May 2025 and incorporated that consideration in its reply to the letter of 20 June 2025 from Cooke & Hutchinson Lawyers, by letter dated 1 July 2025.
• [70] The applicants further complain that their motion was not provided by the body corporate for consideration at the AGM, along with other motions proposed by owners, and the body corporate has thereby rejected the motion.
• [71] Elsewhere the applicants acknowledge that there is no law preventing an owner from obtaining quotes and providing them to the body corporate. Owners do not have to wait to be invited to submit motions for inclusion on the AGM agenda. They can submit a motion to the secretary at any time before the end of the body corporate's financial year.
• [72] That is correct and yet there is no evidence before me that the applicants specifically asked for or submitted their motion to be considered by the body corporate in general meeting at the most recent AGM, as opposed to having it considered by the committee (noting the proposed expenditure was within the relevant limit for committee spending[16]).
• [73] There is no deeming provision like section 58(7) of the Standard Module for general meeting motions in any event, so the fact that the applicants' 10 May 2025 motion was not considered at the AGM does not mean the body corporate has thereby rejected the motion, as the applicants suggest.
• [74] The applicants' 10 May 2025 motion has not been considered by the body corporate in general meeting.

• [75] Section 281 of the Act provides that where an applicant has suffered damage to property because of a contravention of the Act (or CMS), an adjudicator may order the person responsible for the contravention to:

a) Carry out stated repairs, or have stated repairs carried out, to the damaged property; or > > b) To pay to the applicant an amount fixed by the adjudicator as reimbursement for repairs carried out to the property by the applicant.

• [76] It appears to me the body corporate accepts responsibility for proven water ingress from the roof generally (excluding the exclusive use roof-top deck area and sliding door leading from the main bedroom to the balcony on Level H) and the costs of repairing any resultant damage to lot 22.
• [77] Whilst the extent of any damage is unclear, there is evidence of some damage to the internal ceiling in the kitchen area. The body corporate accepts responsibility for repairing this area, once it is certain that the plumber's repair to the external roof has been effective.

• [78] There is no evidence before me that the roof is still leaking into lot 22, following attendance by Queensland Plumbing and minor repairs made on 13 March 2025. Whilst the applicants have claimed in an email on 4 April 2025 that the roof above the kitchen is still leaking, they have provided no evidence to substantiate that claim. The most recent photos and videos are from 9 March 2025 (bar one in Roof Co. Groups' 1 May 2025 quotes showing a bubble in an unidentified area of internal ceiling), before the inspection and minor repairs by Queensland Plumbing on 13 March 2025. They say that the damage to lot 22 has worsened, with increased costs of rectification and ongoing risk to the applicants' property and health, but again provide no evidence to substantiate this claim.
• [79] I do not consider that any orders regarding roof repairs as sought by the applicants against the body corporate are warranted at this time. However, I note the recommendations by Queensland Plumbing for retesting after the next heavy rainfall and flood testing the upper patio area. The body corporate should follow this up as soon as possible as part of its legislative maintenance obligations. It is in the applicants' best interests to cooperate by providing access to the roof-top deck and internal ceiling space of the kitchen and master bedroom. If they refuse, the body corporate can utilise its power of entry under section 163 of the Act. A person authorised by the body corporate may enter a lot, or common property the subject of an exclusive use by-law, and remain on the lot or common property while it is reasonably necessary to inspect the lot or common property and find out whether work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out is necessary; or to carry out work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out. This would make access less timely (because at least 7 days' notice is required, unless it is an emergency) than if the applicants' cooperated and could lessen the observable impact of any recent rain, something the applicants have complained about previously.
• [80] The applicants should provide access to the body corporate's chosen contractor to enable it to establish whether the roof is still leaking so that any further roof repairs that might be required can be identified and undertaken, and any resultant damage to lot 22 assessed and rectified.
• [81] The primary difficulty in this application is that the applicants have provided insufficient evidence to establish that the body corporate is currently failing to maintain the roof in good condition. There is no evidence before me that the body corporate has failed to act reasonably in handling the matter. I have therefore dismissed the application.

[1] Area "D" is an area of 34m2 on Level J, above lot 22 on Level H.

[6] Section 180(3) & (4), Standard Module

[9] See Jefferson Villas [2023] QBCCMCmr 281 & Jefferson Villas [2024] QBCCMCmr 473

[10] As stated in the email of 27 March 2025 from Tylah Vicca to Cathy Allen

[16] Generally, $10,000 - see Schedule 1, Standard Module