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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER; - whether AGM should be stopped from proceeding.

• [1] Ganny Kusno, owner of lot 1 since June 2023, brings this application against the body corporate, regarding the annual general meeting (AGM) scheduled for 3 September 2025.
• [2] The applicant complains that the AGM is not being held within the legislative timeframe of 3 months from the end of financial year, that insufficient notice was given, and that nominations for committee membership were improperly excluded.
• [3] She seeks an interim order that the AGM not go ahead on 3 September 2025; and final orders that nominations for committee membership be invited at least 6 weeks before the AGM and submitted at least 3 weeks prior to notice of the AGM being re-issued, giving at least 21 days' notice.

• [4] Palmerston Tower was established in May 1983 with the registration of building units plan 5638. The scheme is in Southport on the Gold Coast and contains 49 lots.
• [5] Although there is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim application is decided, I provided the committee and body corporate manager with an opportunity to make a submission on the interim order application. The committee made a submission. The applicant also submitted further material.

• [6] I can make interim orders if satisfied they are necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1] An interim order is normally only warranted when a serious legal question needs to be determined and the balance of convenience favours it.

• [7] The applicant does not specifically address urgency, but to the extent that she seeks an interim order preventing a general meeting which has been scheduled for 3 September 2025 from proceeding, I accept that there is some degree of urgency. I note that notice of the AGM was issued on 14 August 2025 and this application was lodged on 18 August 2025.

• [8] While I will not decide any legal questions posed by the application at this interim stage of proceedings, it is necessary to confirm that serious questions are raised as part of determining whether any interim orders would be appropriate.
• [9] The applicant raises 2 issues: timing/insufficient notice for the AGM and that nominations for committee membership were improperly excluded.

• [10] The applicant says the scheme's end of financial year is 31 May, meaning the AGM must be held by 31 August 2025[2]. The AGM has been scheduled for 3 days outside of the 3-months from end of financial year timeframe provided in section 83 of the Standard Module.
• [11] The committee submits that the body corporate manager, SSKB's, advice at the budget meeting in July confirmed that the meeting would still be valid. BCCM resources[3] also confirm that an AGM is not invalid merely because it is late.
• [12] The committee is correct. This is not a serious legal question. Adjudicators have consistently held that AGMs which are held outside of the legislative time frame are not invalid, simply because of that. The Standard Module does not suggest that an AGM should be considered invalid in its entirety if held outside this timeframe anyway. An adjudicator is only likely to question the validity of a meeting where any irregularities have caused some material detriment. Purely procedural irregularities of no practical consequence are generally disregarded.[4]
• [13] The notice of meeting was issued on 14 August 2025, with the AGM scheduled for 3 September 2025. The applicant says 21 days' notice is required[5], and only 20 days' notice was given in this case. It's actually 2 days short if the day notice was given and the day of the meeting are excluded from the count, as required by the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.[6]
• [14] The committee acknowledges the minor administrative issue but says it does not render the AGM invalid. Again, the committee is correct. This is not a serious legal question. Adjudicators have consistently held that insufficient notice of a general meeting will, in and of itself, be insufficient to invalidate a meeting. In this case, only 1 or 2 days less than the 21 required was given. That alone is not a sufficient basis for declaring the AGM or any of the business conducted at it to be void. The applicant must show that some concrete detriment was caused by this procedural irregularity. No such evidence has been submitted. It seems unlikely to me that any disadvantage was caused.

• [15] The applicant claims that nominations for committee membership which had been submitted prior to 31 May 2025 were excluded from the AGM material, whilst others submitted in response to an invitation issued on 19 May 2025 by SSKB on an online portal open for password access only until 31 May 2025 were. The applicant says this notice was ineffective and was outside of the period required of 18/04/2025 to 9/05/2025. She says the posting of a notice on a single use password access portal operated by SSKB does not comply with section 221 requirements for delivery of notices either in person, by post or by electronic mail.
• [16] The applicant provides scant details of the nominations she says were submitted but excluded.
• [17] The applicant includes the notice inviting committee nominations sent to her on 19 May 2025, requiring forms to be submitted to the secretary, care of the body corporate manager, by 31 May 2025. SSKB's log shows that the applicant received the notice at 2:50pm on 19 May 2025 and opened it at 2:55pm on the same day.
• [18] Also included is an email dated 12 August 2025 from the applicant to SSKB in which she claims the draft AGM agenda is incorrect and asks for an explanation as to why committee nominations correctly submitted to the secretary in March 2025 (copies of which were again provided yesterday) have not been included.
• [19] The applicant includes an email dated 18 August 2025 from Nicolette Donofrio to SSKB which states Ms Donofrio was surprised to see that her nomination had been deemed 'invalid'. She asked for clarification on what grounds the decision was made. She also mentions that she was expecting to receive an invitation from either SSKB or secretary, Donna Fraser, to continue the application process and formally submit her nomination. She says she received no such communication.
• [20] The committee submission contained an email from SSKB to Nicolette Donofrio on 19 August 2025 confirming that her nomination for general member, received on 24 May 2025, confirmed by SSKB on 26 May 2025 and again on 19 August 2025, was valid and included in the AGM notice.
• [21] I note from the Notice of AGM that Nicolette Donofrio is listed as being self-nominated as a candidate for ordinary committee member. Her nomination has been included.
• [22] The committee submits that all other valid nominations received (other than those tied to the May EGM) were included in the AGM notice.
• [23] Section 16 of the Standard Module details committee nomination procedures. The secretary is required to serve a notice inviting nominations on each lot owner, at least 3 weeks before but not earlier than 6 weeks before, the body corporate's financial year ends. Nominations must comply with section 18 and must be given to the secretary by the end of the body corporate's financial year. The secretary must acknowledge nominations received as soon as practicable, by forwarding notice to the candidate.
• [24] In her application, the applicant provides no details of the nominations she says were submitted before 31 May 2025 but excluded. I note that as a caretaking service contractor, or associate of the caretaking service contractor, the applicant is ineligible to be a voting member of the committee.[7]
• [25] The committee submits that the applicant refers to previous nominations for committee positions submitted in March 2025 in connection with an upcoming EGM. The EGM was held on 30 May 2025. At that meeting, motions submitted by the applicant to remove all committee members failed. The remaining motion concerning nominations for possible vacancies was ruled out of order, as nominations could not be accepted for positions not yet vacant or prior to the outcome of the vote. A copy of the minutes of the EGM were provided with the submission. Also provided was an email dated 18 August 2025 from SSKB to the applicant in response to the applicant's email of 11 August 2025, complaining that nominations from the owners of lots 6 and 12 sent to the secretary on 8 March 2025 had been incorrectly excluded, saying that those nominations related to the EGM held in May 2025 and were not valid for the upcoming AGM.
• [26] The committee submits that notices inviting nominations for committee membership (and motions) were issued directly to all owners on 19 May 2025, without the requirement of a single-use password. A copy of the notice was provided with the submission.
• [27] The committee says that following notice given by their previous body corporate manager in January 2025, the body corporate was without administrative guidance until SSKB was appointed at an EGM on 28 March 2025. The transition period was longer than expected. During the changeover, the request for nominations was missed by both SSKB and the committee. Upon recognising this, on 14 May 2025, the secretary requested SSKB to issue the notices, which were sent on 19 May 2025. Notices were sent directly to all owners AND were accessible via the portal (with a single-use password). All nominations other than those submitted in connection with the May EGM were valid and included in the AGM notice.
• [28] In a further email to this office on 28 August 2025, the applicant provides an email dated 24 July 2025 from her to SSKB and secretary, Donna Fraser, attaching a committee nomination form dated 24 July 2025 from the applicant, purporting to nominate the owner of lot 35, Shannon Fries, as an ordinary committee member. Also included was SSKB's reply email of 11 August 2025 to the applicant and Mr Fries, stating that the nomination would not be accepted, because nominations were due no later than 31 May 2025. Shannon Fries is not listed as a nominee in the Notice of AGM.
• [29] The committee acknowledges that the timeline for calling for motions and nominations was 11 days instead of 21. It does not believe this is sufficient to invalidate the meeting. It says guidance from this office confirms that such minor procedural issues do not render an AGM void, especially as the committee was without the support of a body corporate manager for months and all committee members were acting in good faith.
• [30] Although the notice inviting committee nominations was not issued within 6-3 weeks before the end of the body corporate's financial year required by section 16(3) of the Standard Module, I have no evidence before me that any nominations have been incorrectly excluded. The notice of AGM lists 2 nominations for chairperson, 1 for secretary, 1 for treasurer and 9 nominations for ordinary committee members, so at least those owners recorded as having nominated those candidates received adequate notice to nominate candidates of their choice.
• [31] Although a properly made nomination for committee membership being incorrectly excluded from a committee election is a serious legal issue, the applicant has not substantiated her claim. There is no evidence before me of any properly made nominations for committee membership having been incorrectly excluded.

• [32] An adjudicator must 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. Evidence that an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm is particularly relevant.
• [33] The applicant says that she is concerned that if the AGM goes ahead on 3 September 2025 and is later found to be invalid, the cost of calling and conducting the meeting will be lost. The votes taken and decisions made will be invalid. Important decisions about special levies that are necessary to provide funds for major maintenance and repair works required to prevent ongoing damage to lot 1 and other lots will be delayed further. She says the body corporate will not be harmed by correctly re-issuing the invitations for committee nominations and correctly giving notice of the AGM.
• [34] In my view the balance of convenience does not favour the making of any interim orders. The applicant has failed to persuade me that any serious legal questions have been raised regarding the timing and/or notice of meeting. Regarding nominations for committee membership, she provides no evidence that any nomination was incorrectly excluded.
• [35] AGMs are required by the legislation. There are important matters (including the setting of contributions based on budgets and building insurance) required to be considered at each one. I note that there are several motions submitted by owners (including 8 submitted by the applicant) included on the agenda. Based on the material before me, I see no justification for delaying the AGM, which the applicant notes, is already being held outside of the legislative time frame.

• [36] The applicant does not raise any serious legal questions for determination and the balance of convenience does not favour the making of any interim orders.
• [37] At this stage I consider the application misconceived and without substance.
• [38] I have dismissed the application for interim orders. The application for final orders will be progressed in accordance with the Act.
• [39] Further material submitted by the applicant by email on 28 August 2025 alleges irregularities in the voting process for the AGM. She will need to amend her application for final orders if she wishes to have this material included, but in the meantime, the AGM scheduled for 3 September 2025 will proceed as planned.

[3] Common Ground, Issue 32; Ciana [2021] QBCCMCmr 72

[4] Wei-Xin Chen v. Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482, (unreported), District Court (Brisbane) D4080/2000, Boulton J, 29 May 2001 @ [27].

[6] Section 38(1)(a).

[7] Section 10(2)(a)&(b), Standard Module