Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

ACCESS TO A LOT - where the only entry to the rooftop of the scheme building is through a lot - whether the respondents have not permitted access - whether valid entry notices were given.

Act, s 163

1. If the Body Corporate for One One Six The Esplanade:
   1. resolves to undertake work it is authorised or required to carry out, or an inspection to ascertain if work it is authorised or required to carry out is necessary, and
   2. authorises persons (whether individuals or a corporation) to enter Lot 20 for the purpose of undertaking that wors or inspections, and
   3. gives the owner and/or occupiers of Lot 20 at least 7 days of notice of the entry,

then the authorised persons may enter Lot 20 at the notified time and remain in the lot for as long as is reasonably necessary to undertake the work or inspection.

1. The Body Corporate for One One Six The Esplanade may resolve to engage a qualified professional, such as a locksmith, to facilitate access to Lot 20 pursuant to Order 1 if the lot is not accessible at the notified time, and may recover the reasonable cost of those services, if required, from the owner of Lot 20 as a debt.
2. Guy Zumbo Pty Ltd ACN 010 125 185, Vincent Zumbo, Guy Zumbo, and any persons acting on their behalf, must not prevent access to Lot 20 pursuant to Order 1 or otherwise obstruct the exercise of the statutory power to enter Lot 20.

• [1] This application is about access to the respondents' Lot 20. Lot 20 is set on two levels and the upper level includes the roof of the building. The only access to the roof is through Lot 20. The body corporate says access to the roof will be required on many occasions over the life of the building for ordinary maintenance activities, but that access is being obstructed.
• [2] The body corporate currently wants to inspect the exterior of the building to ascertain its condition and identify any necessary maintenance. It says it has engaged building experts to undertake an audit. In February 2025 it resolved to issue entry notices for an inspection. It issued entry notices on 3 occasions, for entry in March and April, but each entry was refused.
• [3] The body corporate says the respondents are seeking to impose conditions on its power of entry beyond the legislation. It says the respondents have breached their obligation to provide unobstructed access to Lot 20. The applicant seeks orders to enable access to Lot 20.

• [4] One One Six The Esplanade community titles scheme 53557 (One One Six The Esplanade) is a 20-lot scheme in Surfers Paradise. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 274466.
• [5] The application seeks the following orders:

(a) If the Body Corporate gives the owners and occupiers of Lot 20 at least seven days written notice under section 163 of the Act, then the persons authorised by the Applicant may enter and remain on Lot 20 while it is reasonably necessary to:

1. inspect the lot or common property and find out whether work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out is necessary; or
2. carry out work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out.

(b) If Lot 20 is not accessible at the notified days and times, the Body Corporate may engage an appropriate professional, such as a locksmith, to facilitate access to Lot 20 and may recover the cost in doing so from the owner as a debt.

(c) Guy Zumbo Pty Ltd (ACN 010 125 185), Vincent Zumbo, Guy Zumbo, and any persons acting on their behalf, must not prevent access to Lot 20 at the notified days and times and must not otherwise obstruct the exercise of the power to enter Lot 20 under section 163 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld).

(d) Such other or further orders as the Adjudicator may consider just and equitable to resolve the dispute.

• [6] 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 performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[2]

• [7] This application was lodged on 27 June 2025 pursuant to a resolution passed outside a committee meeting on 1 May. The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondents and all owners.[3] Three submissions were received, which the applicant responded to.[4]
• [8] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions.[6]

• [9] The respondents oppose the application. They say the body corporate issued defective or incomplete entry notices in reliance on an invalid motion but wants an adjudicator to cure its failure to comply with the requirements. They say the defects include issuing notices to persons who are not owners or occupiers, for lots not mentioned in the motion, and for entry by persons not mentioned in the motion and who are not authorised by the body corporate. They say, despite the defects, they sought to work cooperatively with the applicant. They further say there is an obvious and reasonable alternative available, so it is not reasonably necessary for access to be gained to Lot 20 for the inspection. They also submit that the application should be dismissed, and the applicant directed to properly authorise and issue a compliant notice. They say they have indicated, and now confirm, they would comply with a valid notice.
• [10] Two owners who are committee members support the application. One says the committee has been trying to access Lot 20, informally and formally, for about 5 years without success. They assert the respondents obstruct the legal right of entry despite protocols being followed. They say access is need so rope technicians and building experts can inspect the exterior, the building needs to be washed down yearly due to its proximity to the sea, and without regular and adequate maintenance the building will deteriorate. The other expresses concern at the inability for the body corporate to undertake maintenance because of restrictions imposed.
• [11] In its reply, the body corporate notes the respondents do not address, let alone defend, the matters they raised when refusing access to Lot 20, but instead raise new objections. It says the submissions are wrong at law, contradictory, and misconstrue section 163 of the Act. It says it can be inferred that the respondents will not allow any entry that is not wholly within their control and for a purpose they permit. It says the first respondent is the original owner of the scheme and sole shareholder of the builder, and Guy Zumbo is the director of both. It says there are defects in nearly every window, which is why McNab and its window specialist were engaged. It says the respondents want to frustrate inquiries into the building work to avoid being held liable for defects. It maintains the orders sought should be made to avoid further and unnecessary litigation in relation to basic access requirements.

• [12] The key question in this dispute is whether the body corporate has issued valid entry notices.

• [13] Section 163 of the Act provides a body corporate with a right of entry to a lot or an exclusive use area, by persons authorised by the body corporate, for the purpose of inspecting the need for or undertaking work that the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake.
• [14] Except in an emergency, notice of intended entry to a lot must be given to the owner, or to the occupier if the owner does not occupy the lot. Entry must be 'at a reasonable time' after at least 7 days written notice is given. The power of entry allows authorised persons to remain on the property while reasonably necessary to carry out the inspection or works.
• [15] It has been accepted that the power of entry can include entry to a lot or exclusive use area for the purpose of accessing some other area of scheme land.[7]
• [16] The power of entry is a statutory right that does not need an adjudicator's order to be effected. An affected owner or occupier is not required to consent to the entry or entry arrangements. It is an offence to obstruct entry that is exercised pursuant to a valid entry notice. But a body corporate must act reasonably when exercising its power of entry.[8]
• [17] A fundamental element of the exercise of the right of entry is that it is for work (or an inspection to ascertain the need for work) the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake.
• [18] Where entry is sought to conduct work the body corporate is responsible for (such as the maintenance of common property), the body corporate would normally need to have passed a valid resolution resolving to undertake that work. However, the power of entry may also arise if the body corporate has received an order of an adjudicator, court, or tribunal, or another relevant authority (such as a council compliance notice) directing it to undertake the work.
• [19] In addition to having authority for the work or inspection, the body corporate should have authorised the persons intended to enter and resolved to issue the entry notice.
• [20] The legislation does not specify what must be included in an entry notice. But having regard to its statutory obligation to act reasonably, ideally a body corporate would include as much information as possible to inform the owner or occupier of the details of the entry. What information should be provided to act reasonably may depend on the circumstances.

• [21] I will outline the events that occurred in this dispute and the submissions relating to them.

• [22] At a meeting on 13 February 2025 the committee discussed a building audit by McNab. It noted McNab had arranged a window specialist, but an external window audit had not occurred as access to Lot 20 had been prevented. It noted its statutory obligations. It resolved to issue a notice of entry to Lot 20 to perform its required duties of preventative maintenance.
• [23] The respondents say the body corporate did not pass a valid resolution authorising an entry notice to be issued or authorising a person to enter. They say the resolution does not identify the persons authorised to enter, identify or authorise the purpose of entry, or identify or authorise the dates, times and periods of entry. They assert the preamble is not part of the resolution and does not provide the necessary detail. They say there is no evidence the body corporate approved McNab or SC Installations to carry out the work. So, they say the body corporate did not validly authorise the entry notices.
• [24] The body corporate says the respondents do not provide authority for their argument that a resolution authorising entry needs to be precise and prescriptive, or name individuals authorised to enter. It says if details were required in the resolution, the resolution would be required to be given by section 163 of the Act. It says details such as the time and date of entry cannot always be known when a resolution is made. It says the 'explanatory notes' were clearly included and there can be no confusion that the body corporate authorised an entry notice being given, the purpose of the entry, and who would be entering. It says the resolution contained sufficient detail and the entry notices were validly issued pursuant to the resolution.
• [25] The body corporate also says the committee resolution makes it plain that the inspection was being organised by McNab through a window specialist (SC Installations). It notes the use of subcontractors is common. It says McNab and SC Installations were approved to undertake the inspections but evidence of that is not required to be included in an entry notice.

• [26] On 17 March the body corporate manager (BCM) issued an entry notice to the owners/ occupiers of Lots 12, 15 and 20, seeking access by McNab to those lots, including the rooftop, to inspect the glass and exterior of the building. The notified date and time of access was 9 am on 25 March. The notice requested that an owner or occupier be present to allow access. It requested a copy of the notice be given to any tenant.
• [27] The notice was sent to 3 email addresses. The body corporate says two of those addresses are listed in its records for Lot 20. It further says Lot 20 is occupied by Guy and Vincent Zumbo and used for family purposes, and there is no tenant not associated with the lot owner.
• [28] Vincent Zumbo replied to the notice saying the date was not suitable. They refused access on that date, requested another time, advised access was not permitted without a representative of the owner, and said access could only be communicated to the owner and not the tenant.
• [29] The body corporate's solicitors responded on 24 March that there was no requirement for permission to exercise the statutory power of entry and that access would occur.
• [30] Solicitors for the owner then wrote on 24 March asserting the entry notice was ineffective because it was not properly served on the owner, and it requested the notice given to any tenant when that was a body corporate responsibility. They further said there was no common property device that contractors could use to conduct an inspection so the contractors would need to modify the lot or locate equipment or machinery on the it. They said the body corporate should provide a detailed explanation of how the inspection would be conducted and issue a valid entry notice. They advised they would not provide access on 25 March and would have private security onsite to preserve the integrity of the lot.
• [31] The body corporate the contractors carrying out the inspection are abseilers and there are anchor points on the roof to enable abseiling, so there was no proper objection. Despite that, it says it cancelled the inspection and sought to appease the respondents.
• [32] The respondents' submission alleges several defects in the first entry notice in addition to the validity of the authorising resolution. They say:
  1. the authorising resolution did not mention entry to Lots 12 or 15
  2. the authorising resolution did not appoint McNab as a person authorised
  3. McNab is a company and the entry notice does not identify by name the persons who, on behalf of McNab, were authorised to enter the lot, and
  4. the notice does not specify the period within which the authorised persons were authorised to enter and remain on the lot.
• [33] While the body corporate acknowledges an entry notice should include as much information as possible, it says there is no express requirement for what should be included. It refers to a previous decision that a notice does not need to list every employee or subcontractor involved or provide contact details or other information about them. It notes that the reference to a person generally includes a reference to a corporation as well as an individual. It says it took steps to accommodate the respondents' concerns and denies the first notice was invalid.

• [34] Two committee representatives had an apparently amicable meeting with Guy and Vincent Zumbo on 31 March.
• [35] On 4 April the BCM then issued an entry notice to 'Guy Zumbo (owner)' regarding entry to Lot 20. The notice said SC Installations required access to Lot 20, including the rooftop, to inspect the glass and exterior of the building. The notified date and time of access was 8 am on 14 and 15 April. The notice advised two contractors would attend with a bucket with bottled water, rope bag, and harness bag and would protect the floor with drop sheets, tarps, or similar.
• [36] On 7 April the notices were forwarded to the respondents' solicitors noting they had been given to the owner at the email addresses recorded in the body corporate's records and the tenant.
• [37] On 11 April the owner's solicitors objected to the entry notice. They said the respondents had advised the committee the lots were fitted out to a high standard, and they had previously experienced issues with contractors causing damage, so they sought to understand the steps being taken to ensure the lots were not damaged. They said the committee agreed to provide a detailed inspection methodology including the name and qualifications of the contractors, the work or inspections being carried out, how it was being carried out, the equipment being used and how, the methods to be used to ensure the lots were not damaged, and the duration of the inspection. They asserted the committee had agreed to the owner being given the opportunity to consider and have input into the inspection methodology and that there would be no further entry notices until there was agreement on the inspection methodology. An objection was also raised to entry being sought during the Easter holiday period despite there being no apparent urgency. They sought the withdrawal of the notices and the provision of agreed inspection methodology.
• [38] The body corporate's solicitors responded asserting there was no commitment for agreement on the inspection methodology and the entry notices addressed all the requirements raised. It questioned the prospect of damage to the lot by contractors carrying bags and water bottles through the unit and laying out floor protection covers out of an abundance of caution. It queried why the Easter holiday period was a concern and said the owner had been given ample opportunity to nominate convenient dates. It said the entry would proceed.
• [39] On 13 April the owner's solicitors confirmed access would not be provided on 14 and 15 April but nominated 29 April if acceptable. Apparently on that basis, entry did not proceed on 14 and 15 April.
• [40] The respondents submit this notice was defective because:
  1. it is addressed to Guy Zumbo as the owner of Lot 20, but he is not the owner
  2. the authorising resolution did not mention SC Installations or authorise it to enter Lot 20
  3. SC Installations is a company or business name, and the entry notice does not identify by name the persons who, on behalf of SC Installations, was authorised to enter, and
  4. the notice does not specify the period within which the authorised persons were authorised to enter and remain on the lot.
• [41] The body corporate says the notice was issued to the nominated address for service for Lot 20 and the respondents could not have been confused as to who the owner was and who the notice was given to. It further says it was reasonably clear from the resolution that the committee had engaged McNab to have a window specialist carry out the inspection.

• [42] In reliance on the owner's nominated date, on 21 April the secretary sent an entry notice to Guy Zumbo regarding Lots 12, 15 and 20. It said SC Installations required access to the lots to inspect the glass and exterior of the building. The notified date and time of access was 29 and 30 April from 8am on each day. The notice advised that two contractors would attend with a bucket with bottled water, rope bag, and harness bag and would protect the floor with drop sheets, tarps or similar. The notice was emailed separately to two email address.[9]
• [43] The body corporate says on 29 April authorised persons sought to enter Lot 20. It says two contractors were accompanied by two committee members who stayed in the lift. It says the contractors were met by Vincent Zumbo who blocked their entry and gave them a deed of waiver and indemnity to be signed before access would be given. The deed included to be indemnified for claims, including legal fees, arising from or in connection with the access. The deed was not signed, and so access was not given.
• [44] The respondents' submissions dispute this entry notice because:
  1. it is addressed to Guy Zumbo as the owner of Lot 12, 5 and 20 but he is not the owner
  2. the authorising resolution did not mention entry to Lots 12 or 15
  3. the authorising resolution did not mention SC Installations or authorise it to enter Lot 20
  4. the entry notice does not identify by name the persons authorised to enter, and
  5. the notice does not specify the period within which the authorised persons were authorised to enter and remain on the lot.
• [45] The body corporate says it is immaterial if Guy Zumbo is the owner of Lots 12, 15 and 20 where the notice was only issued in respect of Lot 20 and issued to the nominated address for service for Lot 20. It acknowledges the noticed mentioned Lots 12 and 15, while the authorising resolution was not, but says this was a minor or technical defect that does not void the entire notice. It also says the entry notice does not require a specific period of entry because that would be unworkable in practice.

• [46] The respondents argue there is a question of whether it is reasonably necessary to access the lot to do required or authorised work. They say the Act only allows entry where it is reasonably necessary to inspect or undertake work. They say there is no evidence of precisely what the body corporate wants to do or who has been engaged to do it. Rather, it says there is only a bare assertion that the body corporate wants to inspect windows and balustrades. It says the applicant bears the onus of proving it is reasonably necessary to access their lots and it has provided no evidence of that. It then says there is an obvious and viable alternative available for the inspections, so it is not reasonably necessary to access Lot 20. It says external windows and balustrades can be easily inspected from the respective lots to which they are attached. It says the inconvenience of giving entry notices to all lots is immaterial.
• [47] The body corporate says access to the roof is required to carry out inspections to the external windows and façade to determine the extent of any rectification or maintenance works that it is responsible for. It says there are known issues of delamination of the windows, with suspected water ingress. It says access will also be required in future for cleaning of external windows.
• [48] The body corporate disputes there is a viable alternative. It says it has already (amicably) arranged internal inspections of other lots, but the external windows and façade cannot be safely accessed via other lots or their balconies. It says the safest and most efficient way of inspecting the external façade and windows, or to undertake cleaning or maintenance, is to abseil from the rooftop. It provides a photograph of the building showing that the external windows and façade are not limited to the balconies of the respective lots. It says the respondents' proposed inspection method would be ineffective and incomplete.
• [49] The body corporate says the limited access to Lot 20 to use the rooftop for the inspections would cause no or minimal disruption to Lot 20. It describes this as traversing the interior of the lot for less than a minute and then working from the open-air rooftop on the second level of Lot 20. It says the proposed alternative is to enter every other lot in the scheme where each entry would be more intrusive and inconvenient for other occupiers than for Lot 20. It says the current circumstances are different to a case cited by the respondents which related to minor and aesthetic work for which there were alternative means of access.

• [50] A body corporate is responsible for maintaining common property in good and structurally sound condition, and potentially other aspects of a scheme.[10] In this scheme, the body corporate is clearly responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building and exterior windows. As part of that maintenance responsibility, it is to be expected that the body corporate (or contractors engaged by it) will need to periodically inspect the exterior of the building and exterior windows to ascertain if they are in good and structurally sound condition or require preventative maintenance or repairs.
• [51] Inherently, the body corporate has a right (subject to proper notice) to enter Lot 20 to enable inspections on the building exterior and windows and any works required. The issue in this dispute is whether the body corporate has given valid notice of entry.

• [52] It does not appear to have been the intention of the committee resolution in February 2025 to engage McNab to undertake a building audit. Rather, it appears McNab had by then already been engaged by the body corporate to undertake an audit. It seems other aspects of the audit had been undertaken, but an inspection of the exterior façade and windows remained.
• [53] That said, the body corporate does not specifically say when or how McNab, including its subcontractors, were engaged to undertake the building audit. Evidence of the engagement did not need to be provided with the entry notice. And no clear dispute has been raised about the validity of any such engagement. Bu if there was a genuine question about it, the body corporate could consider any need to retrospectively ratify the engagement.
• [54] For present purposes, it is apparent that intent of the relevant committee resolution in February 2025 was to authorise the issuing of a notice of entry to Lot 20 to enable the window specialist organised by McNab (SC Installations) to enter Lot 20 undertake an external window audit as part of the building audit McNab had been engaged to undertake. That resolution was clearly made on the understanding that the committee had a statutory responsibility for repairs and maintenance to the exterior of the building and could authorise entry to a lot for that purpose.
• [55] I acknowledge wording of the resolution did not expressly state all elements of that intent. But I am satisfied it was tolerably clear from the entirety of the minutes on that point. There is not the same requirement for precision in the recording of a resolution discussed by the committee in a meeting as there is for a general meeting motion, where voters must be put on notice of the meaning and affect of the motion so they can decide how to vote. There is also no expectation in section 163 of the Act for such precision in a resolution authorising entry to a lot.
• [56] There is no suggestion that any committee member did not understand the circumstances or what they were voting on. There is no suggestion the resolution was so unclear that it was unable to be implemented. I do not consider any owner reading the minutes would not understand the meaning or effect of the resolution. Furthermore, there were numerous communications between the parties regarding the 3 entry notices, including a meeting with the committee. As such, it would seem the respondents were clearly on notice at least before the second notice of the circumstances of the proposed entry.
• [57] It would be preferable for the body corporate to pass more explicit resolutions authorising McNab or SC Installations to enter Lot 20 for the purpose of conducting an external window audit, and the issuing of an entry notice for that purpose. But I do not consider any lack of precision in the February 2025 resolution is sufficient invalidate any of the entry notices.

• [58] The second issue is whether the resolution was sufficient to authorise persons to enter Lot 20.
• [59] The entry notices specified McNab or SC Installations as authorised to enter. I am satisfied it was sufficiently clear from the minutes of the February committee meeting that the committee authorised entry to Lot 20 by the window specialist organised by McNab. It is not disputed that SC Installations is the window specialist organised by McNab. Although SC Installations was not directly named, I consider its entry was authorised by reference.
• [60] I do not consider the entry notice had to name individuals. I consider an 'authorised person' for the purposes of section 163 of the Act can only be a natural person. The wording of the section includes no such restriction; it simply uses the word 'person'. In the absence of a definition of 'person' in the Act, 'person' includes an individual and a corporation.[11] Logically, if a body corporate engages a contractor that is a company to undertake work or an inspection, it may not know or have any control over which individual the company chooses to send.

• [61] The next issue is the respondents' assertion that there is a question of whether it is reasonably necessary to access the lot to do the required or authorised work.
• [62] It has been said that one criteria for a valid entry notice is that "... the entry must be reasonably necessary to carry out work that the body corporate is required or authorised to carry out".[12] But I do not consider the words of section 163 of the Act themselves limit entry only for work or inspections that are 'reasonably necessary'. The section provides that entry can be effected for any work the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake, or an inspection to ascertain that. The relevant limitation in the wording is that the persons authorised to enter can only remain for as long as is reasonably necessary to undertake that work or inspection.
• [63] But there can be broader questions of reasonableness.
• [64] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has said that while section 163 of the Act allows a right of entry, any body corporate action must be reasonable, which must be assessed in the context of all relevant considerations.[13] There can be separate questions of whether it is reasonable for the body corporate to undertake the work or inspection itself, and whether it is reasonable to undertake that work or inspection via access to the lot.
• [65] In the QCAT matter cited above, the Tribunal was not satisfied it was reasonable to enter a lot to undertake aesthetic maintenance of adjoining garden beds when there were alternatives available. In a previous adjudication application, the body corporate wanted to install anchor points on a lot to enable abseilers to clean the building.[14] The owner did not oppose the access but objected to the anchor points. The adjudicator accepted the entry notice was valid, as the work was authorised, but found the body corporate did not act reasonably in seeking to install permanent anchor points.[15] In another matter, an owner opposed entry and the method of carrying out the intended work but did not challenge the resolution by which the body corporate authorised the work and method. [16] In making orders allowing entry, the adjudicator said there was little indication the body corporate had acted unreasonably in deciding in favour of the works methodology over alternatives, even if alternatives were feasible or even better.
• [66] As outlined above, the body corporate has an obligation to maintain the exterior façade and windows at the scheme. Fulfilling that obligation will logically necessitate periodic inspections of the condition of the exterior of the building. I do not consider the body corporate must prove a need to periodically inspect the exterior. In any event, it appears in this case the building exterior may not have been properly inspected for some time (because of the denial of access to the rooftop) and that there are known concerns about the condition of exterior windows.
• [67] Furthermore, I do not accept on the submitted evidence that inspecting (or undertaking work on) the façade and windows only via other lots is a genuine alternative. It seems clear that much of the exterior façade and windows could not be properly accessed from lot balconies. On its face, abseiling down the building seems to be the only viable means of inspecting most of the exterior. Presumably that was why anchor points were installed on the rooftop.

• [68] If Lot 20 was occupied by someone other than the company owner, the entry notices were only required to be given to the occupiers. If the owner was the only occupier, the notices only had to be given to the owner. But there is no reason why the body corporate could not give notices to the owner as well as occupiers, and to all known contact details, to avoid any risk of miscommunication and to ensure all persons likely to be affected by the entry are on notice. Indeed, although not required, it would seem to be reasonable to do so.
• [69] It does not appear to be disputed that Guy and Vincent Zumbo are the occupiers of Lot 20. It also appears Guy Zumbo is the representative of the company owner of Lot 20.
• [70] Ideally a notice given to the owner of the lot should be addressed to their correct name in their capacity as owner, while notices to occupiers should name them (where those names have been given to the body corporate or otherwise 'the occupier') in their capacity as occupiers. But the fundamental obligation is that the owner and occupiers are notified of the entry.
• [71] Where an email address is notified as part of their address for service, the lot owner is taken to have consented to being given or served any notice or information under the Act by email.[17] It appears the notices were sent to email addresses provided to the body corporate for the owner and the occupiers. If those are not the correct addresses for service, the onus would be on the respondents to update their details in the body corporate roll.[18]
• [72] Based on the submitted information I do not consider it can be rationally said the owner and occupiers of Lot 20 were not given and did not receive each of the entry notices issued.
• [73] The first entry notice asked the owner to pass the notice on to any tenant. That is not the responsibility of an owner. But where the notice was given to the owner and occupiers directly, the inclusion of that comment does not invalidate the notice.

• [74] It is evident from the submitted material that access was only required to Lot 20 for the inspection and the committee only authorised entry into Lot 20. It is unfortunate then that the first and third entry notices referred to Lots 12 and 15 and to entry to those lots as well. That error may have been confusing for the respondents.
• [75] I am satisfied the notices of entry to Lots 12 and 15 was not valid where entry to those lots was not authorised. But I do not consider that defect invalidates the first and third notices in respect of the entry to Lot 20. Notably, at least after the first entry notice, the respondents would have been clearly aware that entry was only being sought to Lot 20.

• [76] The respondents say the entry notices were defective because they did not specify the period within which the authorised persons were authorised to enter and remain on the lot.
• [77] To comply with the statutory requirement to give notice of entry to a lot, it is clearly necessary to specify the date and time of entry. But I do not consider the legislation requires a duration of entry to be provided. Rather, it provides that the authorised person can only remain on the lot for as long as is reasonably necessary to undertake the work or inspection.
• [78] Where it can be ascertained, a reasonable body corporate might try to broadly estimate the duration the authorised persons will remain on the lot. For example, an entry notice might say the authorised persons expect to need to be in the lot for 1-2 hours or from 9am to 5pm. But in some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to estimate the required time. A plumber may not know how long it might take to fix a plumbing issue that they have not yet seen. Abseilers might be affected by factors such as weather. I consider the language of section 163 of the Act accommodates the difficulties in knowing in advance how long the intended entry might take.

• [79] Although it does not appear that the respondents pursue the other issues originally raised regarding the entry to Lot 20, for clarity I will comment on them.
• [80] On receipt of an entry notice, the respondents could seek further information the entry. For example, if it is not stated in the notice, they could ask for more information about who will be entering the lot, the duration of entry, what activities will occur on their lot, any steps to protect the lot and its contents, and other arrangements relating to the entry. The body corporate, acting reasonably, should endeavour to provide information it has available to address legitimate concerns. However, the respondents are not entitled to dictate the persons entering the lot or how the work or inspection is carried out. Moreover, if a valid entry notice has been given, the respondents cannot refuse entry because their questions have not been answered or they are dissatisfied with the answers. There is no requirement for them to consent.
• [81] If notified dates of entry are particularly inconvenient for the respondents, they could request alternatives. The body corporate must act reasonably in considering requests. Considerations might include the reason for request, means of accommodating the inconvenience (such as providing a key if the respondents are unavailable), the availability of the contractors on the nominated alternatives, the history of dates changes, the urgency of the entry, and so on. But prima facie, the respondents could not refuse access because the date is inconvenient.
• [82] In theory, the respondents could seek an indemnity from the body corporate or its contractors relating to damage arising from the entry. But the body corporate could not sign a deed that would bind the contractor or vice versa. And committee members would have no authority to sign a deed for the body corporate without at least a committee resolution.
• [83] It would be a matter for each entity whether the specifics of the proposed deed were something they could agree to. It might be unreasonable for the body corporate to sign a deed that would alter its inherent statutory rights and responsibilities.[19] If damage occurred because of the entry, and was not rectified, the respondents may have a right of action against the body corporate or the contractors regardless of whether a deed was signed. But in any event, there is no basis under the Act for the respondents to refuse entry unless a deed is signed.

• [84] The applicant says it has sought orders in the style of previous orders about access to lots. But it specifically wants the respondents named in the order to ensure it is enforceable. Also, while previous orders of this type have authorised entry for specific works, the body corporate seeks broader orders in this application. It says access will be needed to the roof on many occasions throughout the life of the building for ordinary maintenance activities. It says this dispute has revealed a pattern of behaviour by the respondents. It says it would be inefficient and expensive for the body corporate to go through this exercise each time it wants to exercise its power of entry or risk harm to its contractors if the respondents obstruct access. With broader orders, it says it would not need to file an application each time entry is sought. Rather, it could proceed with a complaint and summons for the contravention of the orders.
• [85] It is not the expectation of the legislation that adjudicators orders be required every time a body corporate requires entry to a lot or an exclusive use area. It is similarly not expected that an order for ongoing authority for entry be required. The power of entry is a statutory right. But just as on occasions orders have been considered necessary to facilitate specific entries, I accept that declarations as to the general right of entry can potentially be warranted.
• [86] I note that, despite being legally represented throughout this matter, the respondents raised different objections to each entry notice and then raised objections in response to this application that were not previously raised. And while the respondents claim they have sought to work cooperatively with the applicant, that is not evident from the submitted material. Most notably, despite nominating 29 April as suitable for the entry, entry was refused on that date because a deed that was not previously given to the body corporate was not signed. I consider if the respondents were genuinely willing to assist the body corporate in progressing its statutory maintenance obligations, it could have facilitated access to Lot 20 months ago.
• [87] I further note that it appears this dispute may arise against the backdrop of broader conflict between the applicant and the respondents, or a related entity of the respondents.
• [88] Given all the current circumstances, I am satisfied that more general declarations about the body corporate's power of entry to Lot 20 is warranted on this occasion.

• [89] For the reasons outlined, I am satisfied it is appropriate to make orders clarifying the body corporate's power to enter Lot 20. Where the respondents say they will comply with a valid notice, I consider they should have no difficulty with the orders made.
• [90] The body corporate will need to issue new entry notices to notify the respondents of the proposed entry for the window inspection whenever new dates can be arranged with the contractor. Although I am inclined to accept the February 2025 committee resolution as sufficient, for the benefit of both the respondents and other owners, I would encourage the committee before issuing new entry notices to pass new resolutions that more explicitly:
  1. confirms or authorises the engagement of a contractor (whether McNab or SC Installations) to inspect the exterior of the building, or the exterior windows
  2. authorises entry by employees or representatives of the contractor to enter Lot 20 to enable them to abseil from the rooftop to inspect the exterior of the building, and
  3. authorises the issuing of entry notices to the owner and occupiers of Lot 20.
• [91] The new entry notices must state the dates and time of entry and the lot to be entered. Acting reasonably, the body corporate should include the reason for the entry and the persons (such as the contractor company and/or any known individuals) authorised to enter the lot. The body corporate could also indicate the estimated duration of the entry (if that can be ascertained in advance), the nature (in general terms) of the activities to be conducted on the lot, and any steps being taken to avoid damage or other adverse impacts on the lot and its occupiers. It may also be helpful to include a copy of the relevant resolution authorising the entry. The notice must be given to the occupiers of the lot if the owner does not occupy the lot. But it would be appropriate to give the notice to the owner as well as occupiers (along with known legal representatives).
• [92] The same approach should be taken for any future entry sought by the body corporate.
• [93] The respondents are on notice that if future attempts at entry to Lot 20 made pursuant to this order are obstructed, the body corporate may engage a contractor to facilitate access to the lot, at the lot owner's expense, or otherwise take steps to enforce this order.

[1] Section 276 of the Act

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

[7] See Oceana on Broadbeach Community Titles Scheme 24163 v Searle & Ors [2003] QCA 283, Searle v Broadbeach Community Titles Scheme 24163 & Ors [2004] HCATrans 386, Ocean Air Apartments [2011] QBCCMCmr 357

[8] Noting sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[9] The respondents refer to the third and fourth entry notice, dated 21 and 22 April, but it appears the same notice was sent separately on 21 April to two email addresses, so I have treated this as a single notice.

[10] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

[11] Schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954,

[12] Contessa Condominiums [2021] QBCCMCmr 444, para 11, and then paras 14 to 17

[13] Penno v Body Corporate for the Oasis - Dunmore CTS 29301 [2019] QCATA 65, para 13

[14] Beach Haven Broadbeach [2023] QBCCMCmr 481

[15] I note that no permanent installation or alteration to Lot 20 is proposed here.

[16] Contessa Condominiums [2021] QBCCMCmr 442, Contessa Condominiums [2021] QBCCMCmr 443, and Contessa Condominiums [2021] QBCCMCmr 444

[17] Section 206(4) of the Accommodation Module

[18] Noting sections 206 and 207 of the Accommodation Module

[19] Noting that, under section 318 of the Act, a person cannot waive, or limit the exercise of, rights under the Act or contract out of the provisions of the Act.