//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/88
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-03-23
Original judgment source is linked above.
Palmhurst [2026] QBCCMCmr 88
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)
NUISANCE; BY-LAWS - whether respondent's conduct has breached by-laws or constitutes a nuisance.
MAINTENANCE - whether the respondent has failed to maintain his lot in good condition and/or keep the parts of his lot readily observable from other lots or common property in a clean and tidy condition.
[1] This application concerns the conduct of the respondent, the owner and occupier of lot 7 since February 2017, Daniel Evans. The body corporate says the respondent has persistently caused significant disruption and distress to residents of the complex. His behaviour and that of his visitors has created an ongoing nuisance that has severely impacted the peaceful enjoyment, safety, and well-being of other residents.
[2] The application details numerous instances of unsocial behaviour that the body corporate alleges breaches numerous by-laws and constitutes nuisance, resulting in multiple arrests and over 50 police call outs in the last 2 years. Residents have been subject to frequent domestic disturbances, including yelling, screaming, and the throwing of objects within the lot. Loud noises occur at all hours of the night, disturbing the sleep and mental health of neighbours, particularly those living directly below lot 7. On 2 separate occasions, individuals were found living in the respondent's garage, contrary to council regulations. Police investigations revealed stolen goods stored in the garage. A dangerous dog was housed in lot 7, which required council intervention. There has been rubbish thrown on and left on common property (including used syringes), bicycles hung on common property washing lines (which had to be replaced) and dangerous items placed on the balcony of lot 7, which remains cluttered with rubbish. Visitors to lot 7 have entered other residents' yards, shouted at residents, and damaged gardens by throwing bikes and other items.
[3] The body corporate says these actions have created an environment of fear and anxiety among residents, many of whom now feel unsafe using common property. It says this is not an isolated complaint, but a desperate plea for intervention. The behaviour of the respondent and his associates has made life intolerable for many residents.
[4] The dispute has been ongoing and escalating over of number of years. The body corporate says the respondent has demonstrated unapproachable, aggressive and at times violent behaviour, creating a genuine safety concern for residents and body corporate representatives. Despite repeated verbal and written attempts (including formal notices issued by both the body corporate and its solicitor) there has been no meaningful engagement or resolution. Several residents have made good-faith efforts to communicate with the respondent and his mother, but these pleas have gone unanswered or been met with hostility. Given the continued lack of progress, the body corporate now seeks assistance through this office.
[5] The body corporate seeks the following orders:
[6] Palmhurst was established on 23 January 1992 with the registration of building units plan 71222. The scheme contains 18 units in 4 separate 2-storey buildings, with 9 units on each level. Unit 7 is located on level B, directly above lot 4 and in between lots 6 and 8. Exclusive use by-law 3.1 grants owners exclusive use of a designated area of common property for motor vehicle parking only. Lot 7 is allocated area '7a on Sketch A'.
[7] 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] The body corporate brings this application against the owner and occupier of lot 7, alleging breaches of the Act and CMS. I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[2]
[8] Submissions in response to the application were sought from the respondent (care of the Public Trustee) and all owners. Submissions were received from 7 owners.
[10] The Public Trustee submitted that it was appointed as financial administrator for the respondent pursuant to an order made on 14 September 2007 under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and noted that 4 of the 5 orders sought by the body corporate related to the respondent's personal conduct and not financial matters which would fall within the scope of the Public Trustee's authority. Accordingly, the Public Trustee said it was not able to make any submissions in response to those allegations but suggested that Mr Evans be afforded the opportunity to make submissions should he wish to do so. Regarding the order for costs, the Public Trustee submitted that it was inappropriate in circumstances where the respondent was under a legal incapacity and is a recognised vulnerable member of the community.
[11] In the context of litigation, rules as to capacity are designed to ensure that plaintiffs and defendants who would otherwise be at a disadvantage are properly protected, and in some cases that parties to litigation are not pestered by other parties who should be to some extent restrained.[5] There is a presumption of competence 'unless and until the contrary is proved'; that is, there is a presumption that a litigant of full age is competent to manage his or her affairs.[6] When it is alleged that a person is incompetent, the onus of proof is on those so asserting.[7] I further note section 5(d) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) which provides that the right of an adult with impaired capacity to make their own decisions should be restricted, or interfered with, to the least extent possible, but also section 5(e) which states that an adult with impaired capacity has a right to adequate and appropriate support for decision-making.
[12] In circumstances where the Public Trustee is appointed as financial administrator for the respondent in relation to financial matters only, I have proceeded on the basis that Mr Evans is competent and has capacity to make his own decisions concerning all other matters, including those the subject of this dispute.
[13] In an effort to ensure the respondent was afforded procedural fairness and specifically an adequate opportunity to be heard, I considered whether there was any further means of contacting him to ensure he was on notice of this matter and given the opportunity to respond.
[14] On 14 January 2026 I tried calling the mobile number listed for the respondent and received a message stating "call could not be connected".
[15] I asked the body corporate manager for the contact details for the respondent, as recorded in the body corporate roll. The body corporate roll contained the details of the Public Trustee for the respondent, but also an email address for the respondent and name and email address of a relative, Sue Youngson. The body corporate manager advised that the respondent's mother, Sue Youngson, has advised on multiple occasions that Daniel does not have email or check them. There was some evidence that Ms Youngson had liaised with the body corporate on the respondent's behalf on at least one occasion previously, so I asked for notice of the application and an invitation to make a submission to be emailed to both the email address for the respondent and his mother. This was done on 19 January 2026. No response was received.
[16] Finally, on 16 February 2026, a hard copy of the application and invitation to make a submission was posted to the respondent's physical address, allowing until 16 March 2026 for the respondent to contact us. No response was received.
[17] I am uncertain whether the respondent has read the correspondence sent to him by this office. Notwithstanding that, it was sent to the respondent's address for service, as recorded on the body corporate roll[8], and every contact detail otherwise known to the body corporate, including his physical residential address, email address and his mother's email address. An attempt was also made to contact him using the mobile number provided for him. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made to put the respondent on notice of the application and to seek a submission from him.
[18] All 7 submissions made in response to the application by other residents were unequivocally supportive of the application. They paint a very disturbing picture of what life at Palmhurst, with the respondent residing at lot 7, is like for other residents. Photographs and CCTV footage were included.
[20] The issue in this application is whether the respondent has acted in a manner that has breached any of the by-laws, or the Act and if so, whether orders are warranted. I will consider each of the relevant provisions in turn.
[21] By-laws are contained in the scheme's community management statement (CMS). The CMS is binding on the body corporate and each member of the body corporate as if it included mutual covenants to observe its provisions, entered into by each person bound by it. Where a lot is not occupied by its owner, the CMS is binding on its occupier/s.[9]
[22] Section 94(1)(b) of the Act requires the body corporate to enforce the CMS, including the by-laws. It must act reasonably in doing so.[10]
[23] The application refers to by-law provisions pursuant to the CMS recorded on 27 March 2024.
[24] Sections 182 to 188 of the Act provide the process for pursuing an alleged by-law breach. A body corporate's first formal step is generally to issue a contravention notice. The contravention notice, which must state certain things including the nature of the breach, must be given to the person who the body corporate believes is breaching the by-law. BCCM Forms 10 and 11 were issued on 9 October 2024. If the contravention notice does not rectify the matter, the body corporate can either commence proceedings in the Magistrate's Court or lodge a dispute resolution application in this office. I am satisfied the body corporate has generally complied with the by-law enforcement process.
[25] Breaches of the following by-laws are alleged:
2.2 An Occupier of a lot shall not create any noise likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the Owner or Occupier of another lot or of any person lawfully using Common Property.
2.3 In particular, no Owner or Occupier:
2.3.1 shall hold or permit to be held any social gathering in their lot which is likely to breach this By-law;
2.4 Where there is any unavoidable noise in a lot which at any time may breach this By-Law, an Owner or Occupier must take all practicable steps to minimise annoyance to other Owners and occupiers by closing all doors, windows and curtains of their lot and taking all such further steps as may be necessary or required so as not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person lawfully on another lot or the Common Property.
2.5 Invitees leaving after 10.00pm must be requested by their hosts to leave quietly. Quietness shall also be observed when an Owner or Occupier returns to the building late at night or during early morning hours.
2.6 An Owner or Occupier must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their invitees do not behave in a manner likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the Owners or Occupiers of another lot or of any person lawfully using Common Property.
[26] The submissions mention numerous instances of residents being woken during the night because of noise emanating from lot 7 itself, or from occupants of, or visitors to lot 7, on common property. The nature of the noise is described by submitters variously as 'domestic disputes', 'loud aggressive disputes', 'domestic violence or numerous visitors banging on the door for long periods of time', 'constant fighting and arguing', 'yelling and arguing', 'screaming, yelling, shouting and filthy language, banging and loud music', 'sounds of objects being smashed, heavy stomping/tumbling around, and furniture being dragged' as well as 'noise from furniture being thrown about' and 'loud hammering, scraping, and clanging noises from dismantling bicycles and working with metal tools directly on their floor.
[27] Based on the material before me, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the respondent has repeatedly breached by-laws 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 and that the breaches continue.
3.1 An Owner or Occupier of a lot must not park or stand or remain in or about the Common Property any vehicle (whether operative or not), boat, caravan, trailer, plant or equipment except with the consent in writing of the Body Corporate, PROVIDED HOWEVER that the Owner or Occupier for the time being of each lot shall be entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment for himself and his licensees of the car-space numbered the same as their lot and as identified in Schedule E and Sketch marked "A" attached hereto. Each owner and occupier to whom exclusive use of a car-space is given pursuant to this By-law shall use such space for the use of motor vehicle parking only and shall not litter the same or so use the same as to create a nuisance, but otherwise no such owner shall be responsible for the performance of the duty of the Body Corporate under section 114(1)(a) and (b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.
[28] On 6 August 2024, officers from the Cairns Regional Council inspected the garage over which Lot 7 has rights of exclusive use pursuant to by-law 3.1 and observed through the open roller door that it contained a bed, refrigerator, microwave connected to a power board, personal clothing and items. Those officers identified that the current development approval for the body corporate does not permit the garage to be used as a residence. On 18 September 2024, the Council issued the body corporate a show cause notice in relation to the unlawful use. The show cause notice cited that the unlawful use was an offence under the Planning Act 2016 and required the body corporate to cease the unlawful use.
[29] Submitters say the people residing in lot 7's garage moved out and not long after a 'bike chop shop moved in'. The parts and bikes were new and stolen. The people were wearing masks and just kept on working on bikes and making lots of noise. One owner says police have tracked stolen goods to lot 7's garage. Submitters say the garage is an absolute eyesore, with debris and oil scattered everywhere. Numerous photos were provided as evidence of this with the submissions. One owner complains of the occupants of lot 7 allowing oil to spill from their garage onto the common property driveway without cleaning it up.
[30] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the respondent has breached, and continues to breach, by-law 3.1, by using the car-space allocated to him for uses other than motor vehicle parking and by littering the area.
4.1 The Owner or Occupier of a lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval permit an Invitee to park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the common property.
[31] The body corporate alleges that on 29 October 2024, the respondent and/or his invitees parked a vehicle on common property without the written approval of the body corporate in contravention of by-law 4.1.
[32] One submitter also says people associated with apartment 7 on one occasion stole a golf cart and parked it in the driveway.
[33] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the respondent has breached by-law 4.1 by permitting an invitee to park a vehicle on common property without body corporate approval.
5.1 An Owner or Occupier of a lot shall not obstruct lawful use of Common Property by any person.
5.2 No riding of push-bikes (other than ingress and egress traffic), skateboards, etc allowed on the Common Property at any time.
[34] The body corporate alleges the parking of the vehicle on 29 October 2024 in contravention of by-law 4.1 also breached by-law 5.1 by obstructing the lawful use of the common property. On the same date the respondent is said to have ridden a bicycle on common property, including between 3:34am and 4:43am.
[35] Photos and CCTV footage depicting persons described as invitees of the respondent riding bicycles on the common property driveway were also provided.
[36] I am satisfied, based on the material before me, that the respondent has contravened by-laws 5.1 and 5.2.
8.1.2 interfere unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of another lot in the Scheme; or
8.1.3 interfere unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the Common Property by a person who is lawfully on the Common Property.
8.2.1 permit any of their invitees to behave in a manner reasonably likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of any person lawfully on another lot or the Common Property;
8.2.2 use a Lot or Common Property for any purpose which is illegal, or which may damage the reputation of the Scheme or Body Corporate;
8.2.3 create noise likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment or amenity of any person lawfully on another Lot or the Common Property; and
8.2.4 obstruct the use of the Common Property by another person.
[37] Determining whether there has been a breach of by-law 8 is akin to determining whether there has been a breach of section 167(1) of the Act. I will discuss that provision in detail below. However, the conclusion is the same.
[38] Not every incident referred to in and of itself necessarily constitutes a nuisance or an interference under the by-law. Considered collectively however, on the material submitted, I am in no doubt that overall, the respondent's pattern of behaviour is causing a nuisance and is unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of other lots and common property. It is evident that the conduct of the respondent, the state of lot 7 (including its appearance from other lots and common property and the smell emanating from it), and the mess the respondent and his invitees leave on common property, is having a significant and continuing impact on the ability of other occupiers to use and enjoy their lots and the common property. This is in breach of by-law 8 and constitutes a contravention of section 167 of the Act, as detailed below.
By-law 10 Depositing rubbish, etc, on Common Property
10.1 An Owner, Occupier or their invitee must not leave rubbish or other materials on the Common Property in a way or place likely to interfere with the enjoyment of the Common Property by someone else.
10.2 An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must take reasonable steps to ensure that no objects of any description are thrown or allowed to fall from the balcony or windows of their Lot.
10.3 An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not store, deposit or throw upon the Common Property, including without limitation any foyer area or stairway, any materials, furniture, furnishings, hard rubbish, rubble, rubbish, dirt, dust or other material.
10.4 Each Owner, Occupier and Invitee must take reasonable steps to keep clean the Common Property which includes the driveways, parking areas, garden stairs and bins.
[39] The submissions detail numerous, repeated alleged breaches of by-law 10, substantiated with photos. They depict empty packets (said to be drug packets), used syringes, cigarette butts, partly empty or empty bottles and other rubbish lying around the public areas of the complex, as well as bikes and bike parts strewn across common property, including in stairwells (said to have occurred after the bike 'chop shop' was moved from lot 7's garage to lot 7). The owner and occupier of lot 4 details numerous instances of rubbish being thrown into her yard and side patio. There are also photos of a couch said to have come from lot 7 and a skip bin filled with bike parts being left on common property at the front of the scheme. Numerous owners have also observed invitees to lot 7 urinating on common property.
[40] I find the alleged breaches of by-laws 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 to be made out.
11.1 The Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval, make a change to the external appearance of the Lot.
11.2 The Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval:
11.2.1 hang washing, bedding, or another article if the article is visible from another Lot or the Common Property or from outside the Scheme Land, with the exception of:
11.2.1.1 clothes airers are permitted on the patio provided they are positioned to the rear of the patio; or
[41] The submitters say invitees of the respondent are living and sleeping on the upstairs patio of lot 7 (after relocating there from the garage), which is covered with hanging sheets and blankets to block visibility. Numerous photos were provided.
[42] I am satisfied the material before me establishes a breach of by-law 11.2.1.
14.2 comply with all local authority By-laws and ordinances relating to the disposal of garbage;
14.3 ensure that the health, hygiene and comfort of the Owner or Occupier of any other Lot is not adversely affected by their disposal of garbage.
[43] Owners have observed people from lot 7 carry sheets of broken plaster out, trying to fit rubbish into the scheme's rubbish bins. There has also been a skip bin filled with metal bike parts sitting on their nature strip. There is constant litter on the stairs such as cigarette butts, empty bottles and other rubbish. Rubbish and debris including plastic, metal, and bicycle parts, has been left in the common garden bed in front of lot 4.
[44] On 29 October 2024, the respondent is said to have overloaded Council rubbish bins in contravention of by-law 14.2.
[45] Whilst I have no jurisdiction to determine whether local authority by-laws and ordinances have been breached, I find a breach of by-law 14.3 established, based on the material (including photos and written submissions) before me.
Section 167 Nuisance or hazard
[46] Section 167(1) of the Act provides that the occupier of a lot included in a community titles scheme must not use, or permit the use of, the lot or the common property in a way that:
[48] At common law, a private nuisance is an unlawful and unreasonable interference with an occupier's use and enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection with it.[13]
[49] The question arises as to whether a body corporate has standing to bring an application alleging nuisance or unreasonable interference with an occupier's use and enjoyment of their lot or common property. It has been held that a body corporate does not have standing to sue in private nuisance on behalf of individual owners for interference with the rights associated with their lots; rather those individuals were required to take their own action.[14] An adjudicator has expressed the view that it follows that a body corporate also cannot sue under section 167 where it is not the directly affected party, with the exception for a public nuisance-type case or where the affected party was an invitee who could not have standing due to section 227(1) of the Act.[15]
[50] A public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.[16] While public nuisance addresses conduct affecting a number of persons at one time, what constitutes a sufficient number in a given case is a question of fact.
[51] Section 238 of the Act provides that a body corporate may make an application if it is a party to, and is directly concerned with, a dispute to which Chapter 6 applies. I am of the view that the body corporate for Palmhurst is directly concerned with this dispute. It submits that it has suffered damage to common property because of the respondent's actions and as a result, has expended body corporate funds installing CCTV cameras, repairing common property, and engaging lawyers to assist it with redrafting its by-laws and issuing by-law contravention notices against the respondent.
[52] Further, I am of the view that the nuisance in this case is best described as public nuisance because all residents have been subject to the conduct complained of, 7 of whom have made submissions detailing the nature and degree of the interference, much of which occurs not only within lot 7, but on common property too. I am satisfied that the conduct affects a number of people at one time and therefore constitutes common harm. Public nuisance is not predicated on the complainant having an interest in or a right to occupy or exclusively possess the land.
[53] Suffice to say, I am of the view that the body corporate has standing to bring an application alleging a contravention of section 167(1) of the Act against the respondent in this case.
[54] Pursuant to a recent High Court decision, Hunt Leather v Transport for NSW (Hunt Leather)[17] a revised expression of the test[18] for private nuisance is whether the defendant's use of their land caused a substantial interference with a plaintiff's ordinary use or enjoyment of their land and the defendant's use was for a purpose which was not common and ordinary, or otherwise the defendant's use (while common and ordinary), was not 'conveniently done'. A purpose is common and ordinary in the sense that it is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the locality as to the use of that land. The characterisation of locale might be no more specific than, for example, 'agricultural', 'residential', 'closely populated' or 'industrial'.[19]
[55] I am satisfied that in this case, the degree of interference with ordinary use and enjoyment of other lots and common property is substantial, according to what are considered reasonable standards for the use and enjoyment of residential premises in a residential area. Residents submit that their sleep is frequently disturbed by loud noise (including yelling, screaming, banging, etc) during all hours of the night from lot 7 and the common property; they have to regularly clean up rubbish (including used syringes) from common property, repair common property the respondent and his invitees have damaged, and navigate bike parts left on common property, including in stairwells. Most are sleep deprived and some fear for their safety and that of their guests. Some are on medication for anxiety and depression, some have had colleagues notice its effect on their work.
[56] I am further satisfied that the nuisance does not arise from 'ordinary and accustomed/common use' of lot 7 and the common property. It is alleged that illegal activity (including drug use and sales, harbouring stolen property and reselling it, domestic violence and assault) is conducted by the respondent and his invitees in lot 7 and on common property for the scheme. Numerous residents mention police attendance (pursuant to 50 call-outs in a 2-year period), with some call-outs resulting in arrests. Uniformed police officers can be seen in some of the CCTV footage provided with the application. I consider the use of lot 7 and common property for these purposes to be 'unreasonable'.
[57] Particular instances of noise on 29 October 2024 between 3 and 5am were detailed in the application.
[58] Notwithstanding the absence of any submission from the respondent, I accept the concerns articulated. As noted above, whilst not every incident described necessarily constitutes a nuisance or an unreasonable interference, and some would not constitute a breach if they were isolated, I agree with the body corporate that the respondent's pattern of behaviour over some years is causing a public nuisance and is unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of other lots and common property in contravention of by-law 8.1 and section 167(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
[59] In addition to obligations in the by-laws, the legislation requires an occupier to keep the parts of their lot that are 'readily observable' from another lot or common property in a clean and tidy condition.[20] It also requires an owner to maintain their lot in good condition.[21] An owner is also obliged to maintain in good condition the utility infrastructure within the boundaries of the lot, and not part of the common property and, if the utility infrastructure is in need of replacement, must replace it.[22]
[60] Several submissions refer to terrible odours associated with lot 7. These mostly relate to smells coming from the balcony, where people are said to be residing and where soiled and dirty bed linen is hung. Some statements also refer to the smell emanating from the respondent's unit door.
[61] In the circumstances, I consider it likely the respondent's conduct within lot 7 is resulting in a smell that is affecting others. This is predominantly a breach of the nuisance provisions, and by-law 8. However, it arguably also reflects a breach of the respondent's maintenance obligations under section 211(3) of the Standard Module. I also consider that the respondent is failing to keep the parts of lot 7 which are readily observable from other lots and common property in a clean and tidy condition, in contravention of section 211(2) of the Standard Module.
[62] I also note the submission of the owner and occupier of lot 4, situated directly below lot 7, detailing water penetration to lot 4's bathroom ceiling, from lot 7, further indicating that the respondent may be failing to meet his maintenance obligations under section 211(3) of the Standard Module.
[63] The body corporate seeks the following specific orders:
[64] I am prepared to make orders requiring the respondent to immediately cease using his lot and common property in a way that causes a nuisance, interferes unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of other lots or the common property, or otherwise contravenes section 167 of the Act or the by-laws and that he immediately cease contravening those by-laws the body corporate has demonstrated to my satisfaction he has repeatedly breached, and continues to breach. I consider that these cover the first four orders sought.
[65] Based on the material before me, I am satisfied that orders requiring the respondent to maintain his lot in good condition and to keep those parts of lot 7 which are readily observable from another lot or common property in a clean and tidy condition, are also warranted. These are ongoing obligations, not just one offs. The body corporate should note that if the respondent fails to meet his obligations in this regard, it has the right to carry out the obligations itself and recover the reasonable cost from the respondent as a debt.[23]
[66] I cannot make an order that the respondent pay the reasonable costs incurred by the body corporate in bringing this application. An adjudicator's power to award costs against a respondent is limited to reimbursement of conciliation and adjudication application fees if the respondent fails to participate in conciliation without reasonable excuse.[24] Conciliation was not attempted in this case.
[67] However, it should be noted that to the extent to which the respondent's actions cause the body corporate to incur expenditure in rectifying property damage caused by a breach of the legislation or by-laws, under section 281 of the Act, an adjudicator can order the person responsible for the contravention to carry out repairs or reimburse the applicant for the cost of the repairs.
[68] The picture painted by the application and numerous submissions from owners, substantiated by CCTV footage and photographs supplied, is not pretty. Conditions at the scheme (resulting in 50 police call outs over a 2-year period) are intolerable and have been for some time. Whilst many owners are (or at least were initially) sympathetic to the plight of the respondent and acknowledge his need of help, it has proved to be beyond their capacity to assist or tolerate him.
[69] This is a very unfortunate and distressing situation for all concerned. Despite that, it is unfair, unreasonable, and in my view unsafe, for other Palmhurst residents to be continually exposed to such offensive and anti-social conduct in their own homes. I am satisfied on the material before me that the respondent has breached several by-laws and section 167 of the Act. I am also satisfied he has failed to maintain his lot in good condition and to keep those parts of his lot readily observable from other lots and common property, in a clean and tidy condition. I have made orders regarding those issues.
[70] Whilst it can be hoped that these orders might encourage the respondent to consider the impact of his conduct on others, and to moderate his behaviour, given the documented history and lack of any response to this application, that seems unlikely.
[2] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act
[4] The investigative powers of an adjudicator are set out in section 271 of the Act
[5] L v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2006] FCAFC 114; (2006) 233 ALR 432, @ [25], quoting Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co (Nos 1 and 2) [2003] WLR 1511 @ [31]
[6] L v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2006] FCAFC 114; (2006) 233 ALR 432, @ [26]; Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co (Nos 1 and 2) [2003] WLR 1511 @ [17]
[7] L v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2006] FCAFC 114; (2006) 233 ALR 432, @ [26]
[11] Norbury v Hogan [2010] QCATA 27 @ [10].
[13] Norbury v Hogan @ [13]. This and the other definitions from Norbury v Hogan that immediately follow here regarding nuisance were approved in Miles & Anor v Gough & Ors [2017] QCA 190 @ [6]-[7], [13].
[14] The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 v Murrell; Murrell v The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 [2020] NSWSC 20
[15] Il Palazzo [2026] QBCCMCmr 82 @ [36]
[16] Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1958] EWCA Civ 1; [1957] 2 QB 169 @ p 191
[17] Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW; Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2025] HCA 53
[18] For eg see Hunt Leather per Gordon and Edelman JJ at [57]; Beech-Jones J at [265]
[23] Section 212 of the Standard Module
[27] The value of a penalty unit is currently $166.90 under section 5A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
(2006) 233 ALR 432