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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - where the applicants have sought twelve interim orders broadly about expenditure, body corporate records, compliance with codes of conduct and proposed maintence works - whether the interim orders sought are warranted in the circumstances.

Act, ss 2, 3, 4, 94, 100, 205, 227, 279, 286, 287 288; Accommodation Module, ss 8, 17, 37, 58, 163, 220

1. If motion 2 of the extraordinary general meeting scheduled for 8 September 2025 is passed, the body corporate is restrained from implementing the motion.
2. The interim order will have effect until 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended, whichever is earlier.
3. The application for interim orders is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] Notting Hill Terraces CTS 27904 is located in Bridgeman Downs, Queensland. It is comprised of 70 lots and common property and is governed by the Accommodation Module.
• [2] The applicants have been owners in the scheme since the early 2000's and jointly own Lot 30 and Lot 50 within the complex. The applicants say that during the early years of their ownership, the environment was stable, cooperative and enjoyable. However, in recent years there have been escalating issues within the body corporate. They say that despite genuine attempts to resolve these issues, they have been met with persistent resistance.
• [3] The applicants say that during a recent records search, they discovered troubling conduct and targeted correspondence involving certain current committee members. They say it became apparent that breaches of the legislation have occurred. In particular, they raise concerns about committee members not declaring conflicts of interest and failing to abstain from voting on matters in which they are personally involved. They also raise numerous other issues relating to the committee authorising expenditure, collection and access to body corporate records, general compliance with applicable codes of conduct and issues with the proposed maintenance works on the high-set villas at the scheme.
• [4] The applicants seek the following final orders:

2. Declaration of Relevant Interests by Committee Members

5. Correction of Insurance Disclosure and Liabilities

6. Recovery of Improper Expenditure and Reimbursement of Body Corporate

7. Full and Transparent Disclosure to Affected Lot Owners

1. Procedural and Legislative Breaches in Proposed VOCM Regarding Carpentry Works and Further Escalation with Lot Owner 64

12. Restoration of Transparent and Collaborative Communication

13. Compliance and Transparency by Hartley's Body Corporate Management

14. Compliance and Transparency by the Body Corporate Committee

• [5] The applicants also seek twelve interim orders. These include:

1. Immediate Suspension of Expenditure Related to Lot 64

2. Declaration of Relevant Interests by Committee Members

3. Temporary Restriction on Discretionary Spending

5. Prohibition on Destruction or Withholding of Records

8. Temporary Suspension from Lot 64 Decision Making

9. Compliance and Transparency by Hartley's Body Corporate Management

10. Compliance and Transparency by the Body Corporate Committee

1. Procedural and Legislative Breaches in Proposed VOCM Regarding Carpentry Works and Further Escalation with Lot Owner 64
2. Additional Interim Order Sought

• [6] The applicants say interim orders are required to preserve the integrity of the adjudication process, to prevent further harm and to ensure the governance of the body corporate is conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation.
• [7] This is my consideration of the applicants' request for interim orders. The applicants bear the onus to establish that the interim orders they seek are warranted in the circumstances.

• [8] The applicants submitted this application for adjudication on 1 August 2025.
• [9] The commissioner referred the interim order request to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [10] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comments from a respondent or affected parties before an interim order is decided. However, in the circumstances of this case, interim submissions were invited from the body corporate committee, the body corporate manager and all other owners in the scheme.
• [11] The body corporate committee, the body corporate manager and five other owners in the scheme made interim submissions in response.
• [12] I have reviewed and considered all the submissions and materials submitted on this dispute before coming to my decision on the request for interim orders.

• [13] An interim order is a temporary order that is put in place for a limited timeframe. It is made in the context of an application for final orders and will usually seek to maintain the existing state of affairs until a final decision is made on the dispute. It cannot be final in nature, that is, deliver an outcome that is sought by the final application.

• [14] An adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that one is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[1]
• [15] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted in the circumstances, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interim injunction applications. Accordingly, to determine if it is just and equitable to make the interim orders sought by the applicants, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute, the nature and urgency of the matter, as well as the balance of convenience between the parties. I will explain each consideration in more detail below.
• [16] Firstly, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute and be satisfied there is a serious legal question to be answered. At this stage, the applicants do not need to satisfy me that, on the balance of probabilities, their legal position is the correct one to take. However, I must be satisfied the applicants' case has a sufficient likelihood of success or that there is a 'live' legal issue to justify the making of the interim orders prior to a full investigation into the matter being concluded.
• [17] Secondly, an adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.3 The applicants must therefore establish that the circumstances warrant the interim orders sought. This may be where, for example, the order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm from taking place or to stop something that cannot be undone. I must also balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused, against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted.

• [18] As a preliminary point, I note the applicable legislation provides for certain actions and obligations to be performed. It would be redundant for an adjudicator to make an order to comply with requirements which are already obligatory under the Act or applicable regulation module.
• [19] With all of the above in mind, I will consider each of the interim orders sought by the applicants.

Order 1: Immediate Suspension of Expenditure Related to Lot 64

• [20] The first order sought by the applicants is that specific members of the committee be restrained from incurring, authorising or approving any further expenditure of body corporate funds relating to Lot 64 except where it is directly required for the performance of the body corporate's statutory duties.
• [21] The applicants say this order is needed to restrain the committee members in question from misapplying body corporate funds in potential breach of the statutory framework. They say that allowing such expenditure to be continued to be authorised by these committee members presents a serious and immediate financial risk to the body corporate. They say a temporary suspension of being able to do so is the only effective means of preserving the status quo pending final orders being made in this dispute.
• [22] In its submissions, the body corporate notes the applicants' complaint in this regard appears to arise from a dispute between the owner of Lot 64 and certain members of the current and former committee. The owner of Lot 64 alleged that by-laws were being selectively enforced against him and I understand the committee resolved to engage lawyers to respond to legal correspondence received from him.
• [23] The body corporate says that although the letter received from the owner of Lot 64 was addressed to individual persons, it concerned body corporate governance and argues that the committee was entitled to seek legal advice about matter concerning acts done in the performance of their role as committee members, especially where the allegations made were of a serious nature.
• [24] It appears the committee resolved to incur further legal costs when the dispute with the owner of Lot 64 continued. However, the body corporate denies the committee, or any of its members, acted contrary to legislation in engaging lawyers to act for them in the dispute.
• [25] Firstly, I note that except where a body corporate engages a body corporate manager to carry out the functions of a committee, a body corporate must have a committee.[2] The body corporate considers the composition of its committee every year at its annual general meeting (AGM)[3] and, between those AGMs, committee members may be removed and new ones selected if the body corporate wishes to do so.
• [26] A committee has the power to make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate including decisions about spending, provided authorisation is only being given for matters which are below the relevant limit for committee spending.[4] And, while an adjudicator has broad powers to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute, I must be satisfied there is a legal basis for the order sought.
• [27] Based on the material currently before me, I am not yet persuaded there is a legal basis to restrain individual committee members from participating in making decisions on specific matters where they are otherwise empowered to do so. Making the order sought by the applicants would essentially remove the committee's ability to make decisions on behalf of the body corporate on any spending related to Lot 64.
• [28] I note that each voting member of the committee is subject to the code of conduct in schedule 1A of the Act.[5] And, if a committee voting member breaches the code of conduct, the member may be removed from office in the way prescribed under the relevant legislation.[6] So, if the applicants assert that any of the named committee members have breached the code of conduct, the process to remove committee members set out in the Accommodation Module should be followed.[7] At this stage, I am not yet persuaded this process should be bypassed by an adjudicator's order.
• [29] In addition, the Act provides that a body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions, including making, or not making, a decision.[8] A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate,[9] and a committee acting on behalf of a body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision.[10] Accordingly, the applicants may have a mechanism by which they could seek to challenge a future decision the committee makes about spending if they consider it has been made unreasonably.
• [30] Whilst I can understand the applicants' concerns about the legal expenditure being authorised by the committee, it appears they are concerned about unspecified, hypothetical future decisions relating to Lot 64 which may or may not be taken. There is no evidence before me that the committee is intending to imminently authorise further expenditure in relation to Lot 64.

Order 2: Declaration of Relevant Interests by Committee Members

• [31] The second order sought by the applicants is that all current committee members identified in the correspondence from the owner of Lot 64 declare any personal, financial or other material interest in ongoing matters relating to Lot 64.
• [32] The applicants say that any undeclared interests may give rise to serious concerns regarding actual or perceived bias in administration of body corporate affairs concerning the owner of Lot 64. They say prompt and complete disclosure of relevant interests is critical to protect the body corporate from potential claims and to ensure compliance with the code of conduct for committee voting members and comply with section 58 of the Accommodation Module.
• [33] In its submissions, the body corporate notes the applicants' complaint appears to arise from the same issue as set out in relation to order 1, that is, the dispute between the owner of Lot 64 and certain members of the current and former committee.
• [34] The body corporate notes the applicants' reference to section 58 of the Accommodation Module. However, it says the requirements under this section extend no further than requiring committee members to disclose at a meeting of the committee the member's direct or indirect interest in an issue being considered, if that interest could conflict with the appropriate performance of the member's duties. In addition, the body corporate says that the code of conduct only requires committee members to disclose to the committee any conflict of interest the member may have in a matter before the committee.
• [35] My preliminary view is that the relevant legislation requires committee members to declare any conflict of interest they may have in a matter at the time that matter comes before the committee. And, where they are a voting member who has declared a conflict, they are not entitled to vote on a motion involving that issue.[11]
• [36] However, there is no evidence before me that the committee is intending to imminently make any further decisions in relation to the owner of Lot 64. The applicants appear to be seeking a sweeping, all-encompassing order that current committee members comply with the applicable legislation. Accordingly, as set out at paragraph [18] above, making such an order would be redundant as it is already an obligation set out in the applicable legislation.
• [37] Furthermore, the Accommodation Module sets out the mechanism to be used where it is alleged that a committee voting member has failed to comply with their obligations and therefore breached the code of conduct.[12] As set out above, I am not yet persuaded this process should be bypassed by an adjudicator's order.
• [38] In addition, as set out at paragraph [29] above, the committee has a statutory duty to act reasonably including when making, or not making, a decision. Accordingly, the applicants may have a mechanism by which they could seek to challenge a future decision the committee makes if they consider a committee member has failed to disclose a conflict of interest and abstain from voting on a motion involving that issue.

Order 3: Temporary Restriction on Discretionary Spending

• [39] The third order sought by the applicants is that all discretionary expenditure be temporarily suspended, including but not limited to legal fees, consultancy fees and the engagement of external service providers, except where the expenditure has been authorised by an ordinary resolution of the body corporate.
• [40] What the applicants are essentially seeking with this order is for the committee to be temporarily suspending from making any spending decisions on behalf of the body corporate. This is even broader than what they are seeking under order 1. The applicants say this order is required to prevent inappropriate or unjustified use of body corporate funds while the dispute remains unresolved.
• [41] In its submissions, the body corporate notes again that this complaint appears to relate to the legal expenses incurred in relation to the dispute with the owner of Lot 64. The body corporate says the applicants have argued, amongst other things, that the expenditure exceeded the approved budget. The body corporate says that exceeding a budget is not itself contrary to the legislation.
• [42] The body corporate says the committee is authorised by the legislation to make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate. It says the effect of order 3 would be to categorise every decision that involved expenditure as a restricted issue for the committee requiring approval via a general meeting.
• [43] I note the primary object of the Act is to provide for flexible and contemporary communally based arrangements for the use of freehold land, having regard to the secondary objects.[13] And, to achieve the primary objects, the Act provides for the establishment of community titles schemes and the operation and management of community titles schemes.[14] The secondary objects of the Act includes the requirement to balance the rights of individuals with the responsibility of self-management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes.[15] Accordingly, a key part of community titles living is that schemes are able to manage themselves.
• [44] As noted at paragraph [26] above, a committee has the power to make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate including decisions about spending provided it is below the relevant limit for committee spending.[16] While an adjudicator has broad powers to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute, I must be satisfied there is a legal basis for the order sought. And, I must have regard for a body corporate's responsibility to self-manage.
• [45] Based on the material currently before me, I am not yet persuaded there is a legal basis to restrain the committee from making any decisions on discretionary spending. Even if it was appropriate to make a narrower order to restrict specific spending decisions (which I do not at this stage accept), prohibiting the committee from making any decisions on discretionary spending would be a substantial impediment to self-management which I do not consider would be just and equitable in the circumstances.
• [46] In any event, there is no evidence before me that the applicants have specific concerns about spending being authorised. They describe this order as a "precautionary measure to protect the scheme from escalating costs". I am not yet persuaded that a risk of hypothetical future spending the applicants may not agree with warrants such a broad and restrictive interim order being made.

Order 4: Submission of All Unfiled Official Records

• [47] The fourth order sought by the applicants is that current and former committee members provide the body corporate manager with any unfiled communications or materials relevant to body corporate operations. The applicants say such measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of body corporate records and ensure procedural fairness in the context of these proceedings.
• [48] The applicants explain that they have repeatedly asked the committee and body corporate manager to ensure all communications, including personal emails and WatsApp messages, are properly included in the body corporate's official records. They say they have identified instances where committee members have used both personal emails and WatsApp messages to conduct committee business.
• [49] In its submissions, the body corporate says it opposes order 4 on the basis that it is in the nature of final relief. It says the applicants are seeking identical relief under the final orders they have sought. In addition, the body corporate says committee members may have previously used Watsapp to make arrangements, however no decisions or discussions of committee business took place over these messages. It says the applicants appear to believe they are entitled to 'unofficial communications'.
• [50] As set out at paragraph [13], an interim order cannot be final in nature, that is, deliver an outcome that is sought by the final application. At this stage, I agree with the body corporate that what the applicants are seeking under order 4 is final in nature. In any event, I am not yet persuaded that I am to make an order for 'any unfiled communications' to be provided when these have not been clearly particularised. It would be difficult - if not impossible - to verify compliance with such an order.
• [51] In addition to the above, I note that what the applicants are seeking under order 4 is to compel individual committee members to provide 'unfiled documents'. However, they have articulated this as an order for the body corporate to be directed to make the committee members provide the documents. I am not yet persuaded it is appropriate to make an order where the respondent itself cannot directly fulfil the obligations under the order.

Order 5: Prohibition on Destruction or Withholding of Records

• [52] The fifth order sought by the applicants is that current and previous committee members and the body corporate manager be prohibited from destroying, deleting, altering, concealing or otherwise interfering with all body corporate records relevant to this matter. The applicants say this order is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction or concealment of potentially critical material.
• [53] In its submissions, the body corporate says it is aware of its obligations with respect to keeping records. It says the applicants have provided no evidence to support their contentions that records may be deleted, lost or withheld and that in the absence of any such evidence, the applicants have failed to meet their onus of proof.
• [54] This is another sweeping, all-encompassing order with only the general proposition put forward by the applicants that documents may be destroyed, deleted, concealed or withheld. I have read the examples the applicants have given in relation to records requests they have previously made however, I am not yet persuaded this evidences a real risk that records may be destroyed, deleted or withheld as they allege.
• [55] In addition, order 5 suffers from the same issue as set out at paragraph [51] above, that is it is seeking to compel the body corporate to 'manage' the actions of individual former and current committee members. I am not yet persuaded it is appropriate to make an order where the respondent itself cannot directly fulfil the obligations under the order.
• [56] Finally, I note that the legislation already obligates the body corporate to keep certain records.[17] And, as set out as paragraph [18] above, it would be redundant for an adjudicator to make an order to comply with requirements which are already obligatory under the Act or applicable regulation module.

Order 6: Equitable Access to Body Corporate Records

• [57] The sixth order sought by the applicants is that the body corporate be directed to provide the applicants with prompt, reasonable and unobstructed access to all body corporate records which they are entitled to under the legislation. They also ask that the body corporate refrain from imposing unreasonable barriers to access including excessive fees, undue delays or selective disclosure.
• [58] The applicants say they urgently require access to body corporate records to participate meaningfully in these proceedings and to ensure a fair and informed adjudication process.
• [59] In its submissions, the body corporate says an entitlement to inspect records follows a properly made request and payment of the prescribed fee. It says the applicants have not evidenced that they have made such a request and paid the prescribed fee in a current desire to inspect records. The body corporate says that in the past the applicants have made requests to inspect records and those inspections have taken place. However, there is no outstanding, properly made request.
• [60] The body corporate further notes that the applicants suggest that not gaining access to records could perpetuate any existing misconduct, non-compliance or poor governance which may otherwise go unchallenged. It says the inference is that the records inspection might raise further concerns, currently unknown. However, the body corporate says that any unknown concerns could not form part of this application.
• [61] Section 205 of the Act provides for the giving of information by a body corporate from the body corporate's records to an interested person. It sets out the procedure in which this must be done.[18] I note a request for records must be made in writing and be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the scheme's regulation module.[19]
• [62] Accordingly, there is already a clear mechanism under the legislation which allows interested persons, such as the applicants, to access body corporate records. The body corporate acknowledges that the applicants have made requests to inspect body corporate records in the past. However, it says there are no outstanding, properly made requests.
• [63] I have carefully considered all the materials provided in this dispute. The applicants do not point to a specific, current request for body corporate records which they say the body corporate is refusing to provide or comply with. There is no evidence before me the applicants have made a current request and paid the prescribed fee.
• [64] Based on the materials currently before me, I am not yet persuaded the body corporate would refuse to comply with a future request for records, that being the requirement to permit inspection of records or to give copies of body corporate records following a properly made request. There is a clear mechanism under the legislation the applicants can use to inspect or obtain copies of body corporate records. At this stage, I am not yet persuaded this process should be bypassed by an adjudicator's order. Especially a general, all-encompassing order for access to unspecified records.
• [65] While the applicants have noted several instances where they say the body corporate has not complied with requests for records, it does not appear from the applicants' submissions that there is a specific, live instance of non-compliance the applicants are seeking to have remedied under this order. I do not consider it appropriate to make an order about hypothetical future breaches of the legislation. If this happens, the applicants can make an appropriate application at that time about the specific instance in question.

Order 7: Free and Unfettered Access Until Adjudication

• [66] The seventh order sought by the applicants is that the body corporate be directed to provide the applicants with full, free and unfettered access to all body corporate records they are entitled to under the legislation. They say this should include, but not be limited to, financial records, meeting notices, agendas and minutes, correspondence and any records relating specifically to Lot 64.
• [67] The applicants say they want the body corporate to respond promptly to any requests for records they make, ensure the records are provided in a complete and timely manner and that they are made available in an accessible format, including digital access where applicable. They say unfettered access is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and transparency.
• [68] As I set out at paragraph [61] above, section 205 of the Act sets out the procedure to be followed where an interested person, such as the applicants, wants to access body corporate records. There is a clear mechanism under the legislation the applicants can use to inspect or obtain copies of body corporate records. At this stage, I am not yet persuaded this process should be bypassed by an adjudicator's order.
• [69] In addition, I note that section 205(2) of the Act provides that within 7 days of receiving a written request, the body corporate must permit the person to inspect the body corporate's records or give the person a copy of a record kept by the body corporate. Accordingly, I am not yet persuaded it would be necessary to make an order to ensure records are provided in a timely manner as there is already a timeframe mandated by the legislation.
• [70] Furthermore, it is not clear what the applicants mean when they say they are seeking an order for 'unfettered access'. From their submissions it appears they wish for the body corporate to give them unrestricted access to the body corporate system so they may view the system in 'real time' to "monitor ongoing developments". I note adjudicators have previously considered whether there is a statutory right to access a particular system in order to view records and have found that there is not.[20]

Order 8: Temporary Suspension from Lot 64 Decision Making

• [71] The eighth order sought by the applicants is that the body corporate be directed to suspend certain committee members, (identified in the correspondence from the owner of Lot 64 dated 19 February 2024), from participating in any committee deliberations, communications or decisions relating to Lot 64. They say decisions made in relation to Lot 64 may be procedurally flawed, legally challenged or invalidated.
• [72] The applicants say the body corporate is being exposed to serious legal and financial liability resulting from decisions being made by individual committee members with actual, perceived or undeclared conflicts of interest. They say there is a clear and immediate risk if these members are not restrained from continuing to participate in committee decisions in relation to Lot 64 and a temporary suspension is the only practical mechanism to mitigate the risk.
• [73] In its submissions, the body corporate says the applicants have provided no evidence to substantiate their claims that decisions may be procedurally flawed, legally challenged or invalidated. It denies that any such decisions have been made but says that, even if such a decision had been made, there is a mechanism under the legislation to bring the decision to an adjudicator for determination.
• [74] As set out at paragraph [26] above, a committee has the power to make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate. And, while an adjudicator has broad powers to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute, I must be satisfied there is a legal basis for the order sought. Based on the material currently before me, I am not yet persuaded there is a legal basis to restrain individual committee members from participating in making decisions on specific matters where they are otherwise empowered to do so. Making the order sought by the applicants would essentially remove the committee's ability to make any decisions on behalf of the body corporate on matters related to Lot 64. This is even broader than what the applicants were seeking under order 1.
• [75] In addition, I refer again to the statutory duty a committee has to act reasonably in making or not making a decision. If a specific decision made by the committee in relation to Lot 64 is one which the applicants consider has been made unreasonably, it is open to them to make an application to challenge that decision. I do not consider it appropriate to make an order seeking to restrain committee members from making hypothetical, future decisions about Lot 64 which may or may not be made and may or may not be unreasonable.

Order 9: Compliance and Transparency by Hartley's Body Corporate Management

• [76] The ninth order sought by the applicants is that the body corporate direct the scheme's body corporate manager to immediately address and rectify the contraventions including, but not limited to, acting honestly and fairly in performance of its duties, acting in the best interests of the body corporate, exercising reasonable skill, care and diligence and complying with all legislative and procedural requirements applicable to body corporate operations. The applicants want the body corporate to be further directed to enforce the body corporate manager's compliance with order 9.
• [77] The applicants say that without immediate intervention there is a real and ongoing risk of continued non-compliance and governance failures. They say the body corporate may be exposed to legal or financial liability arising from the mismanagement, procedural irregularities or breach of duty. They also say the integrity, fairness and efficiency of the adjudication process may be comprised.
• [78] In its submissions, the body corporate says it opposes the relief sought under order 9 on the basis that it is final in nature. It also says that despite voluminous submissions and annextures, the applicants have failed to articulate with any precision the provisions of the legislation which they allege have been contravened by a particular action. In addition, it says the relief sought appears to extend beyond any statutory obligations the body corporate manger has.
• [79] Firstly, I reiterate that as set out at paragraph [13], an interim order cannot be final in nature, that is, deliver an outcome that is sought by the final application. At this stage, I agree with the body corporate that what the applicants are seeking under order 9 is final in nature. I note they have sought a very similar order under the final orders sought.
• [80] In any event, while it is clear the applicants are unhappy with the interactions they have had with the scheme's body corporate manager, they have failed to provide a clear legal basis on which order 9 could be made. It appears the applicants are alleging the scheme's body corporate manager has failed to comply with the applicable code of conduct.[21] I have read through the examples the applicants have provided but they have failed to particularise what legislation has been contravened by what alleged conduct of the body corporate manager.
• [81] For completeness, I note that order 9 is essentially an order for the body corporate to 'direct' the scheme's body corporate manager to comply with its statutory obligations (including the code of conduct). I note an adjudicator is empowered to make certain orders including an order requiring a body corporate manager to comply with the terms of the person's engagement, including the code of conduct. This would apply where a specific breach has been identified and an order can be made that the body corporate manager must carry out, or cease carrying out, a specific action to bring them back into compliance with their statutory obligations.
• [82] However, section 227 of the Act only allows the body corporate to bring an application against the body corporate manger and seek appropriate orders. My initial view is that it is not likely to be appropriate to make an order against the body corporate where the conduct being complained about is related to the body corporate manager. I would imagine the applicants would need to put a motion to the body corporate setting out their complaints about the body corporate manager's conduct and requesting that the body corporate take appropriate action. If the body corporate decided not to pass that motion, the applicants could seek to challenge the body corporate's decision as being unreasonable.

Order 10: Compliance and Transparency by the Body Corporate Committee

• [83] This tenth order sought by the applicants is that the body corporate be ordered to direct the committee to immediately address and remedy the contraventions including the failure to comply with statutory obligations, failure to engage with the applicants in a timely, respectful and constructive manner and, failure to maintain transparent decision making. The applicants want the body corporate to be further directed to monitor the committee's compliance with this order and take remedial action if necessary.
• [84] In its submissions, the body corporate opposes the relief sought under order 10 on the basis that it is final in nature. It also says the applicants contend there has been non-compliance by the committee but their allegations have not been substantiated nor, more importantly, have not been determined. In addition, the body corporate notes there is no general obligation on the body corporate to respond to owners' correspondence.[22]
• [85] Like I set out above for order 9, at this stage I agree with the body corporate that what the applicants are seeking under order 10 is final in nature. I note they have sought a very similar order under the final orders sought.
• [86] In any event, the applicants have provided no clear legal basis on which such an order could be made. I have read through the examples the applicants have provided but they have failed to particularise what legislation has been contravened by what alleged conduct. I note they again referred generally to the code of conduct for committee voting members.
• [87] As I set out above, each voting member of the committee is subject to the code of conduct in schedule 1A of the Act.[23] And, if a committee voting member breaches the code of conduct, the member may be removed from office in the way prescribed under the relevant legislation.[24] So, if the applicants assert that any of the named committee members have breached the code of conduct, the process to remove committee members set out in the Accommodation Module should be followed.[25] At this stage, I am not yet persuaded this process should be bypassed by an adjudicator's order.
• [88] In any event, I am currently sceptical of the utility of making the orders sought under order 10. It would be impractical if not impossible for the body corporate to 'monitor' the proceedings of the committee in the way being sought by the applicants.

Order 11: Procedural and Legislative Breaches in Proposed VOCM Regarding Carpentry Works and Further Escalation with Lot Owner 64

• [89] The eleventh order sought by the applicants is for the body corporate to be restrained from proceeding with the proposed carpentry works as described in the committee's communication to owners dated 9 August 2025 until final determination of this application.
• [90] The 'communication' referred to by the applicants is an email from the committee which stated:

Owners approved a contingency of 15% to cover maintenance, repairs or replacement of common property, as well as unforeseen costs that may arise during the works. (AGM motion 10A).

Kurt Hoole works with and recommends Kylock Constructions PTY LTD T/a Gray Solutions for the carpentry work. A representative from Gray Solutions attended NHT on Thursday to conduct an inspection.

The quote the Body Corporate received today exceeds the AGM-approved $15,943.87 by $10,626.63. (Quote attached for $26, 570.50 inclusive of GST) All 22 high sets require the replacement of gable end timbers, and the quote includes the hire of an elevated work platform and a skip.

The Committee recommends that this additional expense be approved by the Committee and endorsed by owners at the next general meeting.

The proposal aims to prevent delays in the painting process by convening an EGM in 28 days, where owners can vote to approve the additional expense. The Committee would not be able to locate a suitable alternate and available contractor for a second quote within the limited timeframe. The painting would be delayed into the rainy season, and the Body Corporate may incur costs for delays.

The painting is due to commence on Monday, 11th August. The painting and repairs of the high- sets need to work in unison.

• [91] The applicants say the committee should be restrained from entering into any contracts or commencing the proposed carpentry works until such a time as owners have been provided with full and transparent disclosure of scope, cost and necessity of the works, at least two independent quotes have been provided and, a properly convened general meeting has taken place to approve the additional expenditure.
• [92] The applicants say motion 10A of the AGM approved a 15% contingency in connection with the painting works being undertaken by the specific contractor named and resolved in that motion. They say the scope of motion 10A does not extend to separate carpentry works whether or not those works are to be carried out concurrently with painting. They say expenditure beyond the scope of motion 10A requires owner approval at a general meeting.
• [93] The applicants say the nature and scope of the carpentry works, including replacement of gable end timbers, elevated work platform hire and waste disposal are repair items which could reasonably have been foreseen during the planning, budgeting and tender process for the painting project. They argue these costs do not constitute 'unforeseen' expenditure within the meaning of the contingency allowance approved by motion 10A of the AGM.
• [94] The applicants say that by representing the additional carpentry works as being covered under the contingency allowance of motion 10A, the committee has misrepresented the nature and scope of approved expenditure to all lot owners. They say this has the potential to mislead owners regarding their rights, the proper approval process and the lawful allocation of body corporate funds.
• [95] The applicants also say that to comply with the legislative requirements, the committee must obtain at least two additional, independent quotes for the carpentry works. They say proceeding on the basis of a single quote, particularly from a contractor linked to the painting works, risks breaching the statutory duty to act reasonably.
• [96] The applicants say an interim order is required to prevent the carpentry works from being permitted to proceed without proper disclosure, competitive quotes and formal approval from owners. They say allowing the works to proceed will cause irreparable financial harm, prejudice the rights of owners and compromise governance integrity.
• [97] I have carefully reviewed the body corporate's submissions on this point. The body corporate explains it is currently undertaking external painting works to 22 high-set villas at the scheme (I understand this is the second phase of external painting with the low-set villas having been painted in 2024). The body corporate says the works were authorised at the 2025 AGM with the total approved costs being $122,236.38. It says the motion approving the works allowed a contingency of 15% for maintenance repairs or repairs of common property and unforeseen costs which may arise during the works.
• [98] The body corporate says the painting works commenced on 15 August 2025. However, just before the works commenced, the service contractor informed it that the repair works required would be more extensive and the cost of the project would therefore increase to approximately $127,613.50. It says on finding this out, the committee took immediate steps to deal with the issue including liaising with the painting contractors to delay further painting works until after an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) could be held.
• [99] The body corporate says the committee sent an email to all owners on 9 August 2025 explaining the situation and recommending that the committee approve the additional expenses with the decisions being ratified at the next general meeting. It explains that at the time of this email, the committee had not been able to negotiate a 'without penalty' delay with the painting contractors. The committee subsequently passed a vote outside committee meeting (VOCM) and resolved to:
  • approve the quote from Kylock Constructions Pty Ltd (Kylock) to replace the damaged gable ends on the high-set townhouses for the cost of $17,132.50, and
  • approve the variation quotation for $2,500 from the painting contractors for them to apply a third coat to weatherboards on 12 high-set townhouses where the colour was blue or green (I understand the darker colours made it necessary to apply a third coat of paint).
• [100] I understand the VOCM resolutions were circulated to owners and on 15 August 2025, a notice of EGM was subsequently sent to owners calling a meeting for 8 September 2025.
• [101] The body corporate says that on 22 August 2025, the painting contractor confirmed a 'without penalty' delay which would allow the body corporate to make the decisions on the repairs and further painting expenses. It says the committee therefore withdrew the VOCM resolutions.
• [102] The body corporate says that on 23 August 2025, the committee provided owners with an update on the situation and explained that the VOCM resolutions had been withdrawn. It says owners will now be able to vote on the additional expenses for the required carpentry repairs and the variation of painting works at the EGM on 8 September 2025.
• [103] Firstly, I note that all the points raised by the applicants relate to the carpentry works and not to the additional painting works. I am therefore only going to discuss this issue. In addition, I note the points the applicants made about the scope and nature of motion 10A not including the carpentry works. However, given the body corporate has confirmed an EGM is being held to consider a motion to authorise the carpentry works, I will not consider whether or not the carpentry works could have fallen into the 'contingency' set by motion 10A.
• [104] The applicants were clearly unhappy with the carpentry works being allowed to proceed based on being authorised by the committee. This issue has now been rectified and owners will be given the opportunity to vote on authorising the carpentry works at the EGM scheduled to be held on 8 September 2025. In my preliminary view, the only remaining issue in relation to the carpentry works is that it seems the committee has only obtained one quote for the works.
• [105] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module provides that where a motion to be moved at a general meeting proposes the carrying out of work which will be more than the scheme's relevant limit for major spending, two quotes for the works must be provided. However, if for exceptional reasons, it is not practicable to obtain two quotes, a single quote may be obtained. If the motion is proposed by the committee, the committee must obtain the quotes.[26]
• [106] The 'relevant limit for major spending' means (a) the amount last set for major spending by ordinary resolution of the body corporate at a general meeting, or (b) the lesser of the amount worked out by multiplying $1,100 by the number of lots in the scheme or $10,000.[27] There is no material before me to suggest the body corporate has passed a motion to set a relevant limit for major spending and accordingly, the major limit for the scheme would be $10,000.
• [107] The quote from Kylock for the carpentry works totals $17,132.50 and therefore the cost to carry out these works is above the scheme's relevant limit for major spending. Accordingly, two quotes must be provided for the works unless, for exceptional reasons, it is impractical to obtain two quotes, then a single quote may be provided. I am satisfied the applicants have raised a serious legal issue about the requirement to provide two quotes.
• [108] The body corporate asserts that exceptional reasons apply in this case meaning that two quotes are not required. It sets out some points about the painting works but the only relevant point it makes about the carpentry works is that the body corporate may be subject to a penalty if the painting contractors are delayed in completing their works. It explains the painters can only finish their part of the job once the carpentry work has been completed. It says the painting has already started and while they have negotiated a brief delay to allow time to hold the EGM, they were unable to find another builder to quote for the carpentry works within the short time they had available before calling the EGM.
• [109] It certainly would have been preferably for the body corporate to have approached this project by first obtaining quotes for any carpentry work that would be required before authorising the painting of the villas and having that work start. However, I appreciate the immensely difficult position the body corporate now finds itself in.
• [110] I carefully considered the submissions the body corporate made about the penalties it may be subject to if the painting contractors are delayed by the carpentry works not being carried out in a timely manner. On 5 September 2025, I asked this office to contact the body corporate secretary for more information on how much the penalty from the painting contractors would be and to provide some evidence of this. When contacted, the body corporate secretary explained that the painting contractors have not provided a figure however, they have indicated that a penalty will not apply if they do not have to relocate plant and materials.[28]
• [111] Based on the materials currently before me, I am not yet persuaded there are exceptional reasons which make it impractical to obtain two quotes for the carpentry works. And, given the works are intended to commence promptly if the relevant motion is passed, I am satisfied the circumstances warrant granting an interim order that, if motion 2 of the EGM scheduled for 8 September 2025 is passed, the body corporate be restrained from implementing the motion.

• [112] The twelfth and final order sought by the applicants is that the adjudicator make any additional interim orders to stabilise governance of the body corporate, provide further protections for the body corporate, and put in place any remedial or administrative measures that are necessary to restore proper and lawful decision-making processes.
• [113] In its submissions, the body corporate says that in the absence of any relief being articulated, there is unlikely to be any urgency. It says no serious issue has been raised by the applicants.
• [114] At this stage, I am not persuaded any such orders are necessary or appropriate.

• [115] For the reasons provided above, I have granted an interim order that if motion 2 of the EGM scheduled for 8 September 2025 is passed, the body corporate is restrained from implementing the motion.
• [116] Although I have made the above order about motion 2 of the upcoming EGM, the body corporate should be aware that an adjudicator may vary or cancel an interim order until a final order is made.[29] If the body corporate can provide evidence there are exceptional reasons which establish that it is impractical to obtain two quotes for the carpentry works, they may wish to apply for this order to be cancelled or varied. For example, if the body corporate can show it has made reasonable attempts to contact other builders requesting quotes for the carpentry works and no other builders are available to provide a quote in a reasonable time.
• [117] I further note that it remains open to the body corporate to obtain a second quote for the carpentry works and hold a further EGM to seek approval for carrying out the works. This order only restrains the body corporate from implementing motion 2 of the EGM scheduled for 8 September 2025.
• [118] I have otherwise dismissed the applicants' requests for interim orders.
• [119] The application will now be returned to the commissioner to progress under the Act.[30]

[2] Section 8 of the Accommodation Module

[3] See section 17 of the Accommodation Module

[7] See section 37 of the Accommodation Module

[11] Section 58(2) of the Accommodation Module

[12] Section 37 of the Accommodation Module

[17] Section 220 of the Accommodation Module

[20] See Sea Haven on the Esplanade [2024] QBCCMCmr 33 at paragraphs [42] to [50] and Clermont Apartments [2018] QBCCMCmr 587 at paragraphs [30] and [31].

[22] See SL8 [2024] QBCCMCmr 402 at paragraphs [50]-[54]

[25] See section 37 of the Accommodation Module

[26] Section 163(3) of the Accommodation Module

[27] See Schedule 1 of the Accommodation Module

[28] Email from painting contractor dated 22 August 2025.