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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about renovations being undertaken to the respondent's Lot 6. The body corporate says it became aware on 16 July 2025 of unauthorised building works in Lot 6, including the removal of a load-bearing wall. It says support props were not installed, raising structural integrity concerns, and asbestos was exposed during the work, raising health risks.
• [2] The body corporate says it has tried to resolve the matter with the respondent without success. It says the respondent has failed to provide evidence of an owner builder permit or licenced contractor, despite those being mandatory. It also says an engineering report provided by the respondent is preliminary and did not include a certified structural assessment.
• [3] The body corporate wants work to cease in Lot 6 until it is given an adequate structural engineering report, builder licence information, there is adequate structural support, and the asbestos is addressed by a licenced contractor. It says that given the seriousness of the safety risks and the lack of compliance documentation, an interim order is required to prevent further unauthorised works and protect the structural and environmental integrity of the building. At this time, I will consider whether interim orders are warranted.

• [4] Paradise Point Towers community titles scheme 10892 (Paradise Point Towers) is a 28-lot scheme at Paradise Point. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 4293.
• [5] This application seeks an interim order:
  1. That the respondent be directed to immediately cease all building works within the lot until such time as:
     • A certified and complete structural engineering report is obtained and provided to the Body Corporate;
     • Adequate structural support (including compliant acro props) is installed in accordance with engineering specifications;
     • A licensed contractor is engaged, with licence details provided to the Body Corporate or a valid QBCC Owner Builder Permit is provided, in accordance with QBCC requirements for works exceeding $11,000 in a strata complex;
     • A licensed asbestos removalist is engaged to assess and remediate any exposed asbestos in accordance with Work Health and Safety legislation.
  2. That the respondent be directed to provide the Body Corporate with:
     • A copy of the completed and finalised engineering report;
     • Evidence of contractor licensing or Owner Builder Permit;
     • Confirmation of compliance with all relevant building codes and safety standards.
  3. That the Body Corporate be authorised to take any necessary steps to ensure compliance with the above orders, including access to the lot for inspection and engagement of qualified professionals if the respondent fails to comply.
• [6] The application then seeks the following final order:

The respondent be immediately restrained from continuing any building works within the lot until the adjudicator has made a final determination on this application.

• [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] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[3]

• [8] This application was lodged on 17 July 2025, pursuant to a committee resolution passed on the same day. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification on some aspects of the application,[4] which was then amended.[5]
• [9] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[6] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [10] After reviewing the submitted material, I sought further information from the body corporate.[7] In response to my request, the BCM provided further correspondence and documentation. I then gave the respondent with a limited opportunity to respond to the application and the further information supplied. The respondent made a submission.

• [11] The respondent details what occurred in the dispute, including the reports obtained and the information provided. They say the body corporate gave approval on 11 July to commence the renovations on 14 July, with the only condition relating to flooring. The respondent says they have been trying to comply with everything the body corporate has asked from day one, and has agreed to everything even when it has been excessive. The respondent says this has cost them thousands extra and they feel their treatment has been unfair, with mixed messages. They say they want to work through the project amicably and respectfully, but do not want obstacles at every moment that cause unnecessary delays and costs.

• [12] The course of events is not clearly explained in the statement of grounds to the application. However, from the various documents provided and the submission, I note the following.
• [13] The respondent says he first contacted the chairperson on 18 June, before settlement of the lot, and advised of their intention to renovate the lot, and was advised of the process.
• [14] On 19 June the respondent submitted a lot improvement application for Lot 6, for work expected to cost $125,000 and last 6 weeks. The scope of works included a new kitchen and bathrooms, removing a concrete wall, other wall alterations, flooring changes, and repainting.
• [15] The body corporate manager (BCM) responded advising detailed specifications and contractor insurance details were required. The respondent said there was no builder/contractor, as they were doing the work themselves. The BCM then said the renovations needed a certified engineering report and full plans including walls to be removed, the dimensions of new supports/steel going in, and a licenced builder with correct insurances.
• [16] The respondent said on 20 June that they would engage an engineer and could get public liability insurance, but there was no requirement for a licenced builder with an owner builder. The BCM responded noting the need for an owner-builder permit for work. It asked for a permit, public liability insurance, building plans and specifications, and an engineering report.
• [17] On 2 July the respondent provided kitchen and master room wardrobe installation plans, an engineer's inspection report, contractor insurance information, and owner builder public liability certificate to the BCM. They said the work would take 6-7 weeks and sought urgent review.
• [18] An engineer's report dated 2 July referred to an initial letter of 23 June and the rejection of their proposed invasive methodology by the BCM on 25 June. It said it did a wall scan that did not detect any structural elements. As such, it expressed the professional opinion that it was safe to remove the walls in accordance with described methodology. An attached drawing showed the proposed walls to be removed and a proposed door opening.
• [19] On 4 July the BCM advised the respondent that the committee had concerns. These included that there were no engineering drawings and that a wall to be removed was structural but there was no information on what it would be replaced with, or the props which were needed.
• [20] On 10 July the respondent provided a report from EDGE Consulting Engineers (EDGE). The respondent indicated they engaged EDGE reluctantly, to comply with committee requirements.
• [21] The EDGE report comprises a letter saying it was engaged to oversee the structural works. It noted several walls would be removed, a doorway would be added in an existing wall, and an additional non-load bearing framed wall would be installed. It said, "As professional engineers, we confirm that the proposed renovation works as documented on the sketch provided by Aydin will not have a detrimental impact on the structural adequacy of the building." It said an EDGE representative would attend during the renovations to ensure instructions were followed in accordance with the design. An enclosed plan, with the status described as 'preliminary', identified the proposed walls to be removed, the proposed door opening, and the new wall. The respondent says that EDGE, unlike the first engineer, did not inspect the site or walls.
• [22] The application alleges that from 11 July the chairperson received multiple text messages and phone calls from the respondent seeking urgent approval for the renovations. The body corporate claims an offer to meet the owner to resolve (unspecified) issues was not accepted. Those claims are not evident from the material submitted in the application.
• [23] The application includes texts between the chairperson and the respondent from 19 June, including the chairperson inviting the respondent to ask the BCM to get the application to the committee ASAP for review. One text from the respondent asks if it was possible to review the application urgently so they could start work. The chairperson responded that they were waiting to hear from the committee and later advised approval should have been received.
• [24] An email from the BCM on the afternoon of 11 July said the committee had advised "To save further delays the owner can proceed with the Reno using Edge Engineering to commence from next Monday." However, the email said a flooring change would not be approved without acoustic underlay being supplied and a request regarding parking of a trailer was refused.
• [25] The respondent says kitchen cabinetry was removed on 14 July, and on 15 July a demolition team removed light fittings, window furnishing, doors and so on. There were text exchanges between the chairperson and the respondent about arrangements for using the lift and entry.
• [26] The respondent says that the removal of the kitchen wall commenced on 16 July. They say that, based on the safe work methodology provided by the first engineer, they exposed a small section of the top corner of the brick to inspect for load bearing structural elements. They found no steel work and continued to remove the wall. They say when about half the wall was removed, the chairperson entered the lot without permission or notice, commented on the lack of structural props, and shut the work down. The respondent said props were not installed because the inspection confirmed no load bearing capacity. The respondent says he was contacted by his demolition team and arranged a contractor to immediately install 8 props.
• [27] The body corporate then contacted EDGE. The application includes texts from the chairperson to the respondent about the lack of support following the removal of walls and the type of props. The BCM then wrote to the respondent saying EDGE had advised the props installed were insufficient and larger props were required. It also sought a copy of the licence for the builder or project manager. The BCM wrote later reiterating that the body corporate had advice that the structural integrity of the building was compromised with the current props and could not be left it its current stated. It said it understood the correct props were being installed but if it did not receive confirmation of that it would arrange them at the respondent's cost.
• [28] An email from the respondent to EDGE said their project manager had rectified concerns and installed support props. They also provided the body corporate's approval to proceed with the renovations and confirmed that construction drawings could be released. EDGE responded saying that it appeared demolition had commenced without adequate props. It said further props needed to be installed that day, as a matter of urgency, with a plan of the propping layout provided. They said they would issue the construction drawings the next day.
• [29] The respondent says EDGE stated that props needed to be installed immediately and the props installed were insufficient without any inspection of the site. The respondent says while they tried to organise alternative props, they were 'bombarded' with messages from the committee and BCM. Being initially unable to source alternatives props, the applicant agreed to the body corporate arranging props, which the respondent paid for, but they the original type of props that were said to be inadequate. The respondent says they subsequently sourced the required props, which they considered excessive, to satisfy everyone.
• [30] The respondent also says that when their demolition team started removing the wall, they peeled of a small section of the stipple ceiling which has asbestos fibrous elements. As the demolition team had asbestos clearance, they were instructed to conduct the necessary rectification and issue a clearance certificate. The respondent says the body corporate subsequently advised the clearance certificate was not acceptable. The respondent says they then engaged C&G Powell Demolition & Asbestos.
• [31] On 17 July the respondent advised EDGE that props were installed as per the plan. EDGE said that was good but said they needed to look at the effect on the overall structure. The respondent replied that they wanted whatever was needed to be done and to comply with any required rectifications. They expressed disappointment that information was withheld from them. EDGE responded that the preliminary plans showed a requirement for steel columns and beams to replace the load bearing wall and obviously there was a need to support the levels above between the wall being demolished and the new steel being installed. It then said the drawings were marked as preliminary for the body corporate approval process, as they were sought as urgent, but a builder would not have proceeded on that level of information.
• [32] On 18 July the BCM said the committee had reviewed the documentation in relation to recent asbestos removal works in the lot. It said it had been confirmed that the material removed was Class A friable asbestos, but the clearance certificate issued by the contractor only held a Class B licence. It said that presented serious health and safety concerns. It asked that the respondent, as a matter of urgency, engage a licenced Class A asbestos removalist to assess the lot and undertake any necessary cleaning or rectification works, provide a valid clearance certificate, and facilitate access to the lot for assessment.
• [33] The respondent says that EDGE first inspected the site on 19 July and acknowledged there were no visible structural components in the brick wall. The respondent says EDGE has supplied construction drawings for the required steel which the respondent has agreed to install. The respondent says EDGE inspected the apartments on every floor above and confirmed that there was no damage or evidence of any impact of the removal of the wall.
• [34] The respondent says C&G Powell Demolition & Asbestos attended on 21 July and conducted air monitoring, with a negative result. They issued a new clearance certificate which was included in the submission.

• [35] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [36] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[8] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[9] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. 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. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [37] As best as I can ascertain, the following are the issues raised by the body corporate.

• [38] First, the body corporate says the removal of load-bearing wall without structural support breaches By-law 9(a).
• [39] By-law 9 in current CMS says:[10]
  1. ALTERATIONS TO LOT

(a) An Occupier must not make a change to the external appearance of a Lot or make any structural alterations to a Lot, except with the consent in writing of the Body Corporate Committee.

(b) A change to the external appearance or a structural alteration to a Lot means but is not limited to erecting external aerials, blind-; or awnings, changes to utility infrastructure, installation of an air conditioning unit or the enclosure of a patio or balcony.

• [40] In deciding whether to approve alterations to a lot, it may be appropriate for a committee to request information necessary to satisfy itself that the work will not adversely impact the structural integrity of the building, will be conducted by a person with an appropriate building permit or licence, and that the work will be conducted in a manner that does not adversely affect other residents. Approval can be given with conditions. In deciding whether to give approval, and in imposing any conditions, the committee must act reasonably.[11]
• [41] Although there appears to be some dispute about whether the wall removed was load bearing, it may be that structural alterations have been undertaken, or are planned, in Lot 6.
• [42] The body corporate communicated approval of the renovations in Lot 6 on 11 July. The BCM verbally indicated to this office a view that the removal of a load-bearing wall was not approved. Alternatively, it may be body corporate's position is that it was the removal of the wall without support or without Edge oversight that was not approved. But the exact assertion of the body corporate and the basis for it is not clear or explained from the submitted material.
• [43] The respondent always identified an intention to remove and alter walls. It appears the committee was aware that wall that it considered to be load bearing was to be removed, and the engineering advice related to the removal of walls. There is no indication that the approval given did not relate to all of the proposed renovations other than the flooring changes. There is no indication that the body corporate imposed conditions on how the removal of or alteration to walls was to be conducted (including with regard to temporary supports). There is no indication that further information or certification was to be provided before work commenced. Indeed, it appears clear the works were expected to commence on 14 July.
• [44] The applicant indicates the committee felt pressured and was not aware the plans were preliminary. That is not substantiated. In any event, it was incumbent on the committee to consider and decide the information it was given and not grant approval unless it was satisfied with the adequacy of the information and the proposal. There is no statutory requirement for a committee to decide a request for approval immediately,[12] it must simply act reasonably. If the committee did not understand the information or wanted more clarity or detail, it could have deferred a decision until it was satisfied regardless of the respondent's desire for urgency.
• [45] At this stage the applicant has not evidenced a genuine issue that the respondent has undertaken structural alterations on Lot 6 without body corporate approval.

• [46] The second issue is compliance with section 167 of the Act. That section provides in part that an occupier must not use or permit the use of a lot in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard, or interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of another lot or common property.
• [47] If a structural alteration has been made or is made to Lot 6 without adequate structural support, that could risk the structural integrity of the building. That risk could rise to the level of a hazard, or it could interfere unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of other lots and common property. It appears that EDGE considers there were initially inadequate structural supports when the wall, or part of it, was removed. But it appears satisfied that the required structural supports are now in place. The body corporate appears to acknowledge that. The body corporate has not evidenced that the initial lack of adequate support resulted in any damage to the structural integrity of the building. It has not evidenced that the respondent has removed the subsequent supports or is likely to before the new structural elements are installed. As such, the body corporate has not evidenced that the current use of Lot 6 constitutes or is likely to constitute a breach of section 167 of the Act.
• [48] If asbestos was exposed in Lot 6 and has not been adequately managed, that could also cause a hazard as well as a nuisance and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of other lots and common property. However, it is not evident that there is currently exposed asbestos. The application on this point is scant. It appears that a small area of asbestos material was exposed but the contractor who addressed it did not hold the required licence. The claim as to the required licencing is not substantiated in the submitted material. The BCM said in an email to the respondent on 18 July that this was confirmed by C&G Powell Demolition & Asbestos Removal. However, no advice or report from that company was included in the application. In any event, the respondent has now evidenced that the company has provided a clearance certificate.
• [49] Accordingly, the body corporate has not established there currently is or is likely to be exposed asbestos in Lot 6 presenting a hazard or an unreasonable interference. Moreover, it is not evident from the submitted material that the applicant raised this issue with the respondent or gave the respondent an adequate opportunity to address it before the application was lodged.
• [50] The applicant also refers to the absence of compliance information. However, the applicant has not clearly established that the lack of that information necessarily means there is a current structural or environment impact on the building such that there is a demonstrated hazard or substantiated impact on the use or enjoyment of other lots and common property.

• [51] The body corporate seeks orders that further works not occur in Lot 6 unless certain further things are done.
• [52] The body corporate refers to compliance with Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) regulations and workplace health and safety legislation. Those are legitimate and serious concerns for the body corporate. It may be appropriate for the body corporate to seek information and confirm those requirements are being complied with in regard to alterations to a lot. But an adjudicator has no role in determining compliance with those requirements or enforcing them. Moreover, it is not evident that the approval given by the body corporate on 11 July was conditional on the provision of any further information or compliance. In that context, I will comment on the things sought by the body corporate.
• [53] First, the body corporate asks for a certified and complete structural engineering report to be obtained and provided. The body corporate has not evidenced that it asked for any further engineering report since the respondent provided the EDGE report. Moreover, it has not evidenced that the provision of such a report was a condition of the approval given. Accordingly, while it may be desirable for the body corporate to obtain this information, it has not yet established the legal basis to require the respondent to provide this.
• [54] Next, it asks that adequate structural support (including compliant props) be installed in accordance with engineering specifications. Although this does not appear to have been an explicit condition of approval, it is arguable that removing a structural wall (even with approval) without ensuring appropriate temporary support is in place before the replacement is installed, could constitute a breach of section 167 of the Act. However, the applicant appears to acknowledge that adequate supports are currently in place. Accordingly, the basis for an order on this point is not currently established.
• [55] Third, the body corporate wants a licensed contractor to be engaged with licence details provided, or a valid owner builder permit to be provided, in accordance with QBCC requirements for works exceeding $11,000 in a strata complex. The application does not cite or explain the QBCC requirements. It may be that the works can only lawfully be undertaken by a licenced builder or a person holding an owner builder permit. However, it is not the role of an adjudicator to interpret and enforce QBCC requirements. While the body corporate asked for this information, it does not appear to have said provision of licence or permit details was a condition of approval or that the approved works could only be undertaken by a licenced builder or an owner builder with a permit. Again, the basis for an order in this regard is not currently substantiated. I note that it is open to the body corporate to contact the QBCC to seek compliance action if it asserts that any relevant requirements have not been met.
• [56] Finally, the body corporate wants a licensed asbestos removalist engaged to assess and remediate any exposed asbestos. As outlined above, the body corporate has not substantiated its claim regarding the type of asbestos found in the lot or of the licencing required to remove the asbestos. In any event, it appears this has now been provided by the respondent.

• [57] The body corporate seeks a final order that it be authorised to take any necessary steps to ensure compliance with the orders it seeks. It is a matter for the final orders whether there are actions the respondent is required to take to comply with their obligations under the legislation and by-laws. However, I will make some brief observations for the information of the parties.
• [58] If final order were made against the respondent, that order could be enforced in the Magistrates Court if it was not complied with.[13] Also, if there was work that the respondent was required to take under the order, and the respondent failed to do that work, the body could undertake that work itself and recover the reasonable cost from the respondent as a debt.[14]
• [59] An order is not required for the body corporate to undertake work in that circumstance. But the body corporate would need to act reasonably, including giving the owner adequate opportunity to do the work themselves. The body corporate would need to pass appropriate resolutions to engage contractors and incur the expenditure, for the contractors to enter to lot to undertake the work, and then to recover the cost of the work. The body corporate would then need to give the required notice of the proposed entry to the lot.[15]
• [60] The body corporate refers in the application to the respondent's conduct breaching By-law 20. That by-law provides that if a body corporate spends money to repair damage caused by a breach of the Act or by-laws by any occupier or invitee, the body corporate could recover the amount as a debt in court action from the owner of the lot. This is not a by-law that an owner or occupier could breach; it merely gives the body corporate a right of action. Moreover, it is not evident that the circumstances contemplated in the by-law have yet arisen. I note the by-law is limited to the repair of damage and not the recovery of broader expenditure that the body corporate might seek to incur to address issues of concern.

• [61] The application refers to the urgency and potential danger associated with the works in Lot 6. Because of the seriousness of the safety risks and the absence of compliance documentation, the body corporate says an interim order is required to prevent further unauthorised works and to protect the structural and environmental integrity of the building.
• [62] I understand the BCM verbally advised a member of the Commissioner's office (when seeking further information at my request) that the body corporate was now satisfied the props were sufficient but were concerned they would be removed to continue further works. They also verbally indicated that the committee were not aware the EDGE report was a preliminary and that the respondent was not given approval to demolish the load-bearing wall.
• [63] The application presents that interim orders are necessary to prevent serious harm from unapproved works. But that is not substantiated by the information provided in the application.
• [64] The applicant has not clearly evidenced that the respondent has undertaken unapproved work or is planning or is likely to undertake unapproved work in future. On its face, the body corporate appears to have approved the renovations in Lot 6, including alterations to walls although not the alteration of flooring. If the body corporate did not intend to approve the removal of an alleged load bearing wall, that was not communicated to the respondent and is not evident from the submitted material.
• [65] Where the body corporate did not impose conditions of approval regarding the provision of further engineering and licencing, and it has not established a genuine risk to the structural integrity of the building in the absence of that information, it has not yet established that interim orders are required until that information is provided.
• [66] Also, where the body corporate appears to concede that adequate temporary supports are in place, the applicant has not established that there is an immediate risk to the structural integrity of the building. The body corporate has not evidenced that the respondent intends to remove or alter the current supports except in accordance with engineering advice.
• [67] The risks associated with asbestos are potentially significant. But again, the applicant has not substantiated its claims in this regard. It is not explained how an interim order to stop further works in Lot 6 are necessary to address any issue with asbestos that has already been exposed. And the respondent has obtained a clearance certificate.

• [68] The body corporate is entitled to have concerns about the health and safety impacts of the renovations that have commenced in Lot 6. But the body corporate must do more than make a bare claim of unapproved works or asbestos to warrant an order. At this stage the applicant has not substantiated that the respondent has undertaken unapproved works, that there is a structural risk to the building, or that there is current asbestos exposure. It has not established that an interim order to stop further work is warranted.
• [69] If the body corporate can produce evidence to substantiate that the works undertaken to date in Lot 6 were not approved, or that unapproved works are planned or likely, or that current or planned works are likely to cause a hazard or nuisance (including lack of structural support or asbestos), it could potentially seek a variation of the interim order. But at this stage, those things have not been substantiated.
• [70] I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[16]
• [71] The body corporate may wish to review the basis for this application before it proceeds.
• [72] It may be the current situation has arisen from inadequate communication between the parties. But, despite the claims in the application, there appears a clear willingness by the respondent to address matters of concern. Accordingly, if the application proceeds, I will recommend to the Commissioner this application be referred to conciliation. It may be that the parties could, through a mediated discussion, reach an agreement to resolve any remaining issues. If the dispute is not otherwise resolved, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions in respect of the final orders from the respondent and all owners.

[3] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[10] Recorded 23 September 2004, titles dealing number 70879381

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

[12] Noting section 58 of the Standard Module

[14] Section 161 of the Act and section 212 of the Standard Module