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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE - MAINTENANCE - whether to authorise spending by the committee above the relevant limit for committee spending

Act, s 243A; Standard Module, s 172(1)(c)

1. The committee of the Body Corporate for One The Esplanade CTS 14060 ('body corporate') to give effect to item 1 of the quotation by BRS Contracting Pty Ltd ('BRS') dated 27 March 2025 bearing reference number 15523 for a total sum of $155,540.00, and in such regard to engage BRS and pay it the said total sum;
2. The committee of the body corporate to give effect to the proposal by IPM Integrity Project Management Pty Ltd ('Integrity') dated 10 April 2025 for project management services for a total sum of $37,400.00 and any associated goods and services tax, and in such regard to engage Integrity and pay it the said sum(s).

• [1] This application has been made by the body corporate seeking authorisation by an adjudicator for expenditure required to meet an emergency in the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
• [2] The scheme comprises 43 lots and common property. It is regulated under the Standard Module. The scheme building consists of multiple levels and is subdivided under a building format plan.
• [3] On 8 March 2025, Tropical Cyclone Alfred made landfall in Queensland with damaging winds and torrential rain.
• [4] Subsequently, the body corporate being concerned about any resultant damage to the scheme building engaged a contractor, BRS Contracting Pty Ltd ('BRS'), to inspect the same. Pursuant to inspection, on 18 March 2025 BRS issued a report finding among other things that the western exterior wall closest to the penthouse patio ('Western Wall') exhibited deflection movement. Accordingly, on 27 March 2025, BRS quoted a sum of $155,540.00 for the installation of a temporary wall bracing for the safe removal of the bricks and associated works.
• [5] On the same day, an engineer upon inspection of the scheme building supported BRS's findings and concluded that the Western Wall was indeed structurally unsafe.
• [6] On 10 April 2025, the body corporate received a quotation for a sum of $37,400.00 from IPM Integrity Project Management Pty Ltd ('Integrity') for the project management of the remediation works.
• [7] Subsequently, on 24 April 2025, Integrity notified the body corporate that since the previous inspection, it has found that the Western Wall had moved significantly; was fractured in multiple places; and was observed physically shifting in high wind conditions. It concluded that there was consequently an immediate risk of the Western Wall collapsing from level 14 of the scheme building to the podium area below. It added that remediation works could no longer wait, and must be carried out as soon as practically possible to avoid any risk of injury, death or further property damage.
• [8] The body corporate states that its insurer is in the process of authorising an interim payment of $200,000.00 in this regard. It adds that both BRS and Integrity are available to immediately commence the works.
• [9] Further the body corporate states that the relevant limit for committee spending was set by ordinary resolution at annual general meeting dated 18 December 2020 at a rate of $600 per lot, which amounts to a total limit of $25,800.00. Accordingly, its committee is unable to authorise the spending for the works and its project management by way of a committee meeting. It requires some higher form of authorisation as set out in the legislation, one of which is the order of an adjudicator.
• [10] In these circumstances the body corporate seeks orders in emergency circumstances to authorise its committee to:
  1. Give effect to Item 1 of the proposal by BRS dated 27 March 2025 bearing quotation number 15523;
  2. Engage BRS to conduct the works pursuant to the said proposal;
  3. Pay to BRS a total sum of $155,540.00 (inclusive of GST);
  4. Give effect to the proposal by Integrity dated 10 April 2025;
  5. Engage Integrity to conduct the proposed works; and
  6. Pay to Integrity a sum of $37,400.00 excluding GST.

• [11] 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 Community Management Statement ('CMS')[1] or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[2] Further, an order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting in a manner stated.[3] An order may also contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate. [4]
• [12] I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to determine the dispute in question by virtue of sections 276(1) of the Act read together with section 227(2) of the Act.

• [13] This application for emergency orders was lodged by the body corporate on 29 April 2025, immediately pursuant to which the Commissioner referred the same to department adjudication in accordance with section 243A of the Act.
• [14] I have investigated the dispute under section 271 of the Act.

• [15] The question before me for determination is whether emergency circumstances exist and accordingly whether the orders as sought are warranted.
• [16] Section 172(1) of the Standard Module states that the committee of a body corporate may only give effect to a proposal involving spending above the relevant limit for committee spending if:
  1. The spending is specifically authorised by ordinary resolution of the body corporate; or
  2. The owners of all lots included in the scheme have given written consent; or
  3. An adjudicator is satisfied that the spending is required to meet an emergency and authorises it under an order made under the dispute resolution provisions; or
  4. The spending is necessary to comply with a court order or judgment, a QCAT[5] order, or an adjudicator's order, or a statutory order or notice given to the body corporate; or
  5. The committee decides the spending is necessary to put in place a relevant policy of insurance or to renew an existing policy of insurance, and the decision to do either of those is not a decision on a restricted issue for the committee.
• [17] Accordingly, where a committee wishes to give effect to such a proposal by seeking an adjudicator's order under section 172(1)(c) of the Standard Module, it is appropriate for an adjudicator to ascertain why it could not instead be achieved by the body corporate itself by either calling a general meeting to have the spending authorised by ordinary resolution or by seeking the written consent of all owners.
• [18] Usually, a genuine emergency (which would pose serious adverse risks if not attended to immediately) would justify the inadequacy of time to call a general meeting or obtain the written consent of the lot owners.
• [19] In this case, I note that this application was lodged five days after the body corporate received advice of the rapidly worsening structural condition of the Western Wall. The minimum statutory notice period to call an extraordinary general meeting is 21 days. I am also cognisant of the fact that obtaining the written consent of 43 lot owners would take much longer.
• [20] Further, I am satisfied based on the evidence provided including engineering reports, that the Western Wall is indeed structurally unsound. If it is not made safe immediately, it may likely cause property damage and personal injury, and leave the body corporate financially liable for the same.
• [21] The body corporate has a statutory duty to maintain the common property in good condition, and where that common property is structural in nature, it must maintain it in a structurally sound condition.[6] This duty is widely considered to be strict in nature. The Western Wall in question is an external building wall, which under a building format plan of subdivision constitutes common property. Accordingly, I am satisfied these are works the body corporate is required to undertake.
• [22] I note that the total sum of $196,680.00 that the committee is seeking to spend for the works and the project management of the same is well above the relevant limit for committee spending set by ordinary resolution at $25,800.00. However, I am satisfied that given the nature of the emergency; the risks of not carrying out the works immediately; and the likelihood of incurring far greater expenses if any of those risks were to materialise, it is just an equitable to grant the orders sought.

• [23] In these circumstances, I grant the orders sought.

[1] The CMS includes the scheme's by-laws

[2] Sections 276)(1)(a) and (b) of the Act

[4] See Brighton on Broadwater Breezes [2018] QBCCMCmr 243 at [8]

[5] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal

[6] Section 180(1) of the Standard Module