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

COMMITTEE ELECTION - whether the nomination and election of a committee member were valid - whether filling a vacancy on the committee was valid - whether orders are warranted.

Standard Module, ss 16, 48

• [1] This application is about whether a committee election was validly conducted.
• [2] At the annual general meeting (AGM) held on 30 April 2025, Geoffrey Lapish (the former owner of Lot 13) was elected as treasurer. The applicant contends that Mr Lapish's nomination and subsequent election as treasurer are invalid, as there is no record of the nomination being received before the scheme's end of financial year (31 January 2025).
• [3] Before the AGM, Dianne Walter (the owner of Lot 87 and the only other candidate for the treasurer position) queried the inclusion of Mr Lapish's nomination. The applicant also emailed all owners and committee members before the AGM regarding the validity of Mr Lapish's nomination.
• [4] After the AGM, the applicant requested that Mr Lapish vacate the treasurer position and that Ms Walter be appointed to the role, or that a meeting be convened to discuss Mr Lapish's nomination.
• [5] Mr Lapish subsequently sold Lot 13 and resigned from the treasurer position. By a vote outside of committee meeting (VOCM) in June 2025, David Galeano was appointed to fill the vacancy. The applicant says there was no contact with Ms Walter about filling the role.
• [6] The applicant wants Mr Lapish's election as treasurer to be overturned and for Ms Walter to be appointed to the position, as the only validly nominated candidate. The applicant also wants the resolution to appoint Mr Galeano to be overturned. The questions then are whether Mr Lapish's election was invalid and, if so, whether the orders sought are warranted.

• [7] The application seeks the following outcomes:

1. A declaration that the Committee Election - Open ballot paper issued by the Respondent on or about 4 April 2025 (as part of the 2025 AGM papers), based on nominations received under Regulation 18(1) and (2) of the BCCM Act, does not comply with the nomination requirements of these regulations.

2. An order to overturn the election of Mr. G. Lapish as Treasurer at the 30 April 2025 AGM and appoint Ms. D. Walter as Treasurer, as the only validly nominated candidate under Regulation 18(1) and (2).

3. An order to overturn the Flying Minute dated 10 June 2025, as it was issued outside the Committee's authority under the BCCM Act, and align the Committee with the outcome in (2) above.

• [8] Oceans Edge (Palm Cove) community titles scheme 37552 (Oceans Edge (Palm Cove)) is a scheme at Palm Cove. The community management statement (CMS) indicates the Standard Module applies.

• [9] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or the performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions in the Act.[2]

• [10] This application was lodged on 24 June 2025. The Commissioner sought further clarification from the applicant about the application.[3] The application was then amended.[4]
• [11] The Commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee, those named on the application as affected persons, and all owners.[5] Submissions were received from the chairperson, Mr Lapish, Ms Walter, and 5 owners. The applicant responded to the submissions.[6]
• [12] The application was referred to department adjudication.[7] I have investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and all submissions.[8]

• [13] The chairperson opposes the application. They submit:
  1. At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held in September 2024, 6 members of the previous committee were removed and replaced by 6 new members (including the current chairperson). The applicant remained in office as treasurer.
  2. The previous committee campaigned for their re-election prior to the AGM held on 30 April 2025.
  3. In February 2025, the applicant (and the then treasurer) resigned from the committee. The timing of the resignation was strategic and intended to create chaos before the AGM. Mr Galeano was appointed as the interim treasurer in the applicant's place.
  4. Mr Lapish's AGM nomination for the treasurer position was emailed to the body corporate manager on 24 February 2025. The body corporate manager accepted the nomination. The chairperson and secretary were not advised that the nomination could not be received.
  5. The applicant removed their treasurer nomination so that their voter base would not be divided.
  6. AGM voting papers were reissued on 4 April 2025, including Mr Lapish's treasurer nomination.
  7. The applicant wants Ms Walter to be appointed as treasurer by default (on a technicality), after failing to win on merit.
  8. This application is not what the community wants and is based on form rather than substance.
  9. If Ms Walter is appointed as treasurer, an EGM will be petitioned for their removal. Alternatively, if there is to be an EGM on this matter calling for new nominations, the results are unlikely to change. Either option would be unnecessary and inconvenient for the body corporate.
  10. The current committee should be allowed to continue its work until the next AGM when new nominations are sought.
• [14] Mr Lapish, the successful candidate for the treasurer position, says:
  1. They were not familiar with the nomination process. Their nomination was given to the body corporate manager on 24 February 2025.
  2. The committee assumed all was acceptable, as the body corporate manager approved the nomination.
  3. Emails were sent to owners before the voting attacking the election process and their credentials. Despite this, the voting numbers were in their favour.
  4. They were suitable for the treasurer position given their extensive experience running businesses.
  5. They no longer reside in the scheme. A new treasurer has since been appointed.
• [15] Ms Walter, the other candidate for the treasurer position, supports the application. Most relevantly, they say:
  1. A nomination form was sent to owners on 17 December 2024. The deadline given for receipt was 31 January 2025.
  2. They raised concerns about the validity of Mr Lapish's nomination before the AGM.
  3. There was an email and nomination from Mr Lapish dated 24 February 2025, 24 days after the deadline.
  4. There is division in the body corporate due to voting blocs.
  5. They have concerns about transparency, procedural errors, and compliance with statutory duties.
• [16] Submissions from 3 owners support the application and Ms Walter's appointment to the treasurer position. Two of the owners comment on Ms Walter's positive attributes and extensive knowledge. One owner submits that Mr Lapish's nomination is invalid, as it was not submitted by 31 January 2025.
• [17] Conversely, 2 owners oppose the application. One owner supports the appointment of Mr Galeano and asserts that even if there was an error, a default win should not be given to Ms Walters. The owner also notes that significant improvements have been made by the new committee. The other owner submits that holding another election would waste the body corporate's time and resources.

• [18] The applicant responded to the submissions. Most relevantly, they say:
  1. The submissions opposing the application do not provide factual evidence in response to the applicant's arguments.
  2. Mr Lapish's nomination was submitted strategically to stop Ms Walter becoming the treasurer.
  3. At the time of nominations, Mr Lapish had listed their residence for sale.
  4. The committee appointed Mr Galeano to fill the treasurer vacancy, creating an ordinary member vacancy which was given to someone unknown to most owners. Their scheme was historically advised by the body corporate manager to prioritise AGM nominees for such vacancies.
  5. The 2025 AGM voting outcomes were influenced by the developer's 22 vote bloc and the current committee.
  6. The unsuccessful candidates still had strong community support. Ms Walter is respected in the community.
  7. The body corporate manager admitted in an email that they were forced to accept Mr Lapish's nomination.
  8. The voting numbers are invalid, as there should never have been a vote.
  9. Having Ms Walter in the position until the next AGM is necessary for understanding the developer's intentions for the next 2 years and what the tenant of the health club wants.
  10. An additional outcome is sought that Ms Walter is installed as the treasurer and allowed to remain in the position until the next AGM, or until their resignation (whichever is first).

• [19] From the submitted material, it is apparent that a significant amount of infighting and division exists within Oceans Edge (Palm Cove). Before turning to my analysis of the substantive issues, I note that the history of conflict within the scheme and the personal attributes of certain key players will have no bearing upon my decision. In determining this application, my sole focus will be on the relevant legislative provisions, not the personal opinions and preferences of the various factions pertaining to the treasurer appointment.

• [20] Sections 16 to 18 of the Standard Module outline the procedural requirements for committee nominations.
• [21] Relevantly for this dispute, section 16(4) of the Standard Module specifies that nominations must be given to the secretary by the end of the body corporate's financial year.
• [22] The timing of Mr Lapish's nomination is not contested. The applicant submits that there was no record of Mr Lapish's nomination by the deadline of 31 January 2025. The submissions of Mr Lapish, the chairperson and Ms Walter confirm that the nomination was submitted on 24 February 2025, after the scheme's end of financial year.
• [23] From the notice dated 17 December 2024 calling for committee nominations, it appears that the owners were duly notified that committee nominations must be received by 31 January 2025. It is not disputed that the end of the financial year for the scheme is 31 January 2025.[9]
• [24] The language of section 16(4) of the Standard Module appears to be "cast in mandatory terms".[10] Moreover, various adjudicators' orders indicate, either explicitly or implicitly, that the requirement to submit nominations for committee membership by the end of the body corporate's financial year is mandatory.[11]
• [25] No argument has been advanced which may justify permitting a nomination after the scheme's end of financial year, such as a typographical error in the closing date circulated to owners.[12] The chairperson simply refers to the acceptance of the late nomination as a procedural oversight amidst the chaos at the time.
• [26] On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Mr Lapish's nomination and subsequent election as treasurer were invalid.

• [27] Mr Lapish resigned from the treasurer position after the AGM, leaving it vacant.[13]
• [28] Regarding filling casual committee vacancies, section 48 of the Standard Module relevantly provides:

(1) Within 1 month after the position of the member of the committee becomes vacant, the committee must -

(a) if the number of its members has not fallen below the number required for a quorum -

(i) appoint a person who is eligible to be a member of the committee to fill the vacancy; or

(ii) call a general meeting of the body corporate to choose a person to fill the vacancy; or

(b) if the number of its members has fallen below the number required for a quorum - call a general meeting of the body corporate to choose a person to fill the vacancy.

• [29] There has been no suggestion that the number of committee members fell below the required number for a quorum after Mr Lapish's resignation.[14] Furthermore, nothing has been raised regarding Mr Galeano's eligibility for committee membership. Consequently, it appears that section 48 of the Standard Module enabled the committee to appoint an eligible person to fill the vacancy.
• [30] As adjudicators have previously observed, the regulations do not dictate how an eligible person is chosen by the committee to fill a casual vacancy.[15] Significantly, there is no requirement for the committee to invite nominations for the vacancy or to prioritise those who nominated for membership at the AGM.
• [31] Although the vacancy arguably presented an opportunity to quell some of the conflict surrounding the treasurer role, the committee was under no specific legislative obligation to appoint Ms Walter to the position, regardless of past practices at the scheme regarding nominations.

• [32] The declaration sought by the applicant that the 'committee election - open ballot paper' at the AGM did not comply with the nomination requirements in the regulations does not appear to be limited just to the election of the treasurer, but rather, relates to the committee election generally. After reviewing the submitted material, I am not satisfied that there is any basis to make such a broad declaration. And even if it was limited to the ballot paper for the treasurer, it is also not clear to me what utility there would be in making such a declaration.[16]
• [33] The applicant seeks a second order to overturn Mr Lapish's election as treasurer and appoint Ms Walter. Although I agree with the applicant that Mr Lapish's nomination and election were invalid, events have moved on from Mr Lapish's election as treasurer at the AGM.
• [34] Critically, Mr Lapish is no longer the treasurer. Before this application was lodged, Mr Lapish had already resigned as treasurer and Mr Galeano was appointed to fill the vacancy. Mr Galeano's appointment created an ordinary member vacancy which has also been filled.
• [35] While I appreciate the frustration of those supporting the application, it is my view that events (specifically, Mr Lapish's resignation and the subsequent appointment of Mr Galeano to the vacancy) have overtaken questions about the validity of Mr Lapish's election at the AGM.
• [36] The applicant seeks a third order to overturn the June 2025 VOCM appointing Mr Galeano to the treasurer position, as they claim it was issued outside the committee's authority under the Act.
• [37] Further to my earlier comments about filling committee vacancies, the applicant has not established that the committee did not comply with section 48 of the Standard Module in filling the vacancies on the committee in June 2025. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the June 2025 VOCM appointing Mr Galeano should be overturned.
• [38] In the applicant's reply to the submissions, they request an additional order that prohibits any of the actions foreshadowed to remove Ms Walter from the position of treasurer and that they be allowed to remain in the position until the next AGM, or until their resignation (whichever is first). Significantly, the applicant did not amend their application pursuant to section 245 of the Act to include this order sought. It would be contrary to the principles of natural justice for me to consider an order that was not put to the respondent and others invited to make submissions.
• [39] However, for the information of the parties, I will make some brief comments. As outlined above, I am not prepared to appoint Ms Walter to the treasurer position. Furthermore, the regulations permit the body corporate to remove a committee member from office by ordinary resolution at a general meeting,[17] or alternatively, in accordance with the process prescribed in the regulations if the removal is for a breach of the committee code of conduct.[18] To make an order prohibiting the body corporate from removing someone from office until the next AGM would be contrary to the regulations and inconsistent with the legislative objective of self-management.[19]

• [40] While Mr Lapish's nomination and subsequent election as treasurer were invalid, for the reasons outlined, the applicant has not established that there is a basis to disturb the appointment of Mr Galeano to the vacancy. I have therefore dismissed the application.
• [41] Moving forward, I caution the current committee to do its utmost to adhere to the procedural requirements for committee elections stipulated in the regulations. Such errors, particularly where voting outcomes have been impacted, only create unnecessary conflict and deepen divisions within the scheme.

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[9] See Oceans Edge (Palm Cove) [2022] QBCCMCmr 471 regarding the scheme's end of financial year

[10] Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach CTS 24163 v 21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 68 at 39

[11] Uni Lodge Rockhampton [2018] QBCCMCmr 410 at 50; Somerset Park [2018] QBCCMCmr 53 at 18; Ocean Pacifique [2020] QBCCMCmr 610 at 117

[12] Hervey Bay Pier Resort [2025] QBCCMCmr 192 at 83 and 85

[14] A 'quorum' is defined in section 60 of the Standard Module as at least half the number of voting members on the committee.

[15] Trinity Cove Apartments [2018] QBCCMCmr 498 at 11

[16] Truth about Motorways v Macquarie [2000] HCA 11 at 52

[17] Section 44(2)(f) of the Standard Module

[18] Section 45 of the Standard Module and section 101B of the Act