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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE; - where body corporate wishes to undertake repairs to common property and the owner's property damaged by water ingress but the lot owner refuses to provide access.

• - Whether body corporate is entitled to proceed with repairs
• - Whether body corporate is entitled to access lot pursuant to section 6 Act

Act, ss 20, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 152(5), 159, 6, 170(1).

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] Mr Ehrlich seeks orders against the body corporate to address the consequences of persistent water ingress to his lot 38:
• [2] The interim outcomes sought by the applicant are as follows:

1. That the Body Corporate be restrained from acting upon or implementing Motion 2 passed or proposed in the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 16 April 2025 or any subsequent resolution purporting to approve additional funding or authorization of works for the rooftop terrace of Lot 38, until final orders are made in this application 2. That the Body Corporate be restrained from engaging, authorizing, or permitting access to any contractor (including Remedial Property Solutions Pty Ltd) in relation to rooftop repairs or waterproofing works affecting Lot 38, unless such contractor has been nominated or approved in accordance with the Community Management Statement (CMS), and supervised by the consultant nominated by the Applicant. 3. That any proposed works or expenditure relating to Lot 38's rooftop be paused and all contracts or allocations of funds suspended, pending compliance with: * - the requirement to obtain multiple quotes where the spending exceeds the relevant limit section 223 BCCMA and Regulation Module),

• - proper disclosure of the updated scope and funding arrangements to all owners, and * the final outcome of this application.

• [3] The grounds upon which the above interim orders are sought are set out below.
  • [4] Non-Response to Valid Contractor Nomination:

The Applicant says they nominated SDX Engineers to supervise necessary remedial works. They believe that Pursuant to by-law 7.6, the Body Corporate was required to respond or object within a prescribed timeframe. No formal objection, alternative nomination, or valid reason for delay has been provided. Accordingly, he says the nomination must be taken to have been accepted, and the Body Corporate's refusal to cooperate constitutes a breach of the By-Laws.

• [5] Failure to comply with "professional stipulations".

The Applicant says the SDX synopsis provided significant insights into Non Compliant Defects of completed and failed works of RPS in July 2020. The critique of method for the new proposed works alluded to likely failure of the new works. The revised quote input into the EGM April 2025 showed no alterations to the original, thereafter receiving a formal Report in March 2025. He says there is a clear need to seek alternative contractors regarding the non compliant works.

• [6] Invalidity of EGM Resolution and Misrepresentation of Funds:

Motion 2 of the EGM purports to rely on funds from a previous 2020 resolution. However, invoices from that period show that the entirety of the $33,593.11 allocation was spent. The applicant says "the 2025 motion misleads owners by suggesting that $44,131.27 remains available, when this is demonstrably false". The motion also proposes new works with materially changed specifications (including membrane type and drainage), triggering the requirement for fresh approval and accurate disclosure.

• [7] All works conducted by RPS in accordance with the 2020 EGM authorization, have been fully paid. The applicant says that as per the following invoices which total $33,618.23 so there are no unspent funds:

Invoice Number: 354 Invoice Date: 22/06/20 $14,087.98

Invoice Number: 355 Invoice Date: 22/06/20 $ 7,867.20

Invoice Number: 356 Invoice Date: 29/06/20 $ 2,271.06

Invoice Number: 357 Invoice Date: 07/07/20 $ 9,391.99

• [8] Failure to Comply with Spending and Quotation Requirements:

The applicant says only one quote was provided for works exceeding $20,000, in breach of the applicable Regulation Module requiring multiple quotations. The Body Corporate has failed to disclose or assess alternate quotes despite being aware of an existing recommendation by SDX Engineers. The continued attempt to proceed with works using only a single contractor, previously subject to complaints and legal orders, is procedurally flawed and raises risks of legal, structural, and financial liability.

Next, the applicant says there are no inclusions for building works removed required to be rebuilt, privacy screens, lights, damaged stairwell housing or flashings included in the Quote by RPS.

The applicant says he has raised concerns regarding the work undertaken by RPS and says he is concerned about compliance with building standards.

• [11] Irreparable Harm and Need to Preserve Status Quo:

Finally the applicant says that an Interim Order is therefore necessary to preserve the current position and allow the Adjudicator to determine the final dispute. He says that

should the proposed works proceed while this dispute remains unresolved, the applicant may suffer irreparable harm, including:

1. damage to waterproofing infrastructure,
2. inability to sell or lease the property due to unlicensed or non-compliant works,
3. exposure to legal risk due to latent defects

• [12] Declarations
  1. A declaration that the Body Corporate has not acted reasonably in attending to the investigation and repairs to prevent water ingress into the lot 38.
  2. A declaration that the body corporate has failed to comply with its duties under section 152 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 ("the BCCM Act") and section 170(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 ("Accommodation Module") contributing to ongoing damage to Lot 38
  3. A declaration That the quotation for rooftop rectification works issued by RPS and submitted to the Applicant in June 2024, together with the Entry Notice dated 14 June 2024, and incorporated into Motion 2 of the EGM held on 16 April 2025, constitutes a formal declaration by the Body Corporate that the works authorized by the 2020 EGM were insufficient to prevent water ingress into Lot 38**.**
  4. A declaration that the rooftop terrace of Lot 38 is Exclusive Use Common Property, and that pursuant to the Community Management Statement and the scheme's registration as a Building Format Plan of subdivision (BUP),the boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building, including the floors, walls, and ceilings. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling the Body Corporate retains responsibility for maintaining structural and drainage elements, including membranes, concrete slabs, and shared pipework, in accordance with sections 20 and 159 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCMA), and subject to sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994."

1. A declaration that the installation of the linear drain by the Body Corporate was an Improvement under the CMS by Laws, and that the Body Corporate, having carried out the works as the "owner", is responsible for ensuring the works are rectified to comply with legal and regulatory standards.

• [13] Orders to Rectify Works
  • 6. An order that the Body Corporate Comply with the Engagement Notice submitted by the Applicant on 14 March 2025 and Engagement Nomination dated April 4th 2025, including:
  • 6.1 An order that the Body Corporate fund the investigation and expert reporting process (as per SDX's requirements), to be paid from the sinking fund within 14 days, with costs estimated between $8,500 and $11,000.

6.2 An order that the Body Corporate must accept that the remedial works on Lot 38 are to be carried out by RMS (as recommended by Structural Diagnostics), under the supervision and direction of Structural Diagnostics (SDX), in accordance with the final Scope of Works established through the Engagement Notice issued pursuant to clause 7.5 of the By-laws on 14 March 2025, and the Engagement Nomination made pursuant to clause 7.8 of the By-laws on 4 April 2025.

6.3 An order that the Body Corporate pay for and ensure all rooftop works comply with:

a) the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act),

b) the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia), and

c) that all such works be:

• certified by a qualified hydraulic engineer,
  • executed by a licensed plumbing contractor (noting RPS lacks the required QBCC licence), and
• accompanied by all relevant Form 16s or compliance certificates on completion.

d) the Engagement Notice dated 14 March 2025, and Engagement Nomination dated April 4th 2025, submitted by the Applicant, and fund the associated expert investigation, design and supervision process, as outlined in SDX's report, with estimated costs of $8,500-$11,000 to be paid from the Sinking Fund within 14 days.

• [14] Repair of Lot 38 Internal Damage and Rectification

7. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to s281(a) of the BCCM Act that the Body Corporate within 14 days of complying with order 3, carry out:

7.1 the source of all water ingress into the Applicants lot be repaired;

7.2 the water damaged gyprock and any other water damaged elements in the Applicants lot is removed and replaced to mitigate any risk of exposure to mould spores;

7.3 all areas of the lot that have been water damaged be inspected and certified free of any mould by appropriately qualified mould experts.

7.4 that the costs of the Gyprock requiring replacement beyond the Timmers Quote 879502 August 15 2022 be measured and invoiced by the Contractor to the Body Corporate and be paid, by the Body Corporate

7.5 that the costs of Electrical cabling be checked when the plaster is removed, and replaced if affected and damaged from water ingress, and electronic items affected and damaged from water ingress from 2022, per quotes from Allscope Communications, be paid for by the Body Corporate, for product and installation.

7.5a For the Body Corporate to authorize and fund the initial evaluation the condition of wiring Quote Number QU-BSEQ-0005 Bright sparky Electrical TOTAL AUD 3,795.00

7.5b That should the report determine wiring is damaged and require replacement, an order should be made for the Body Corporate to authorize and fund the quote from Bright Sparky Electrical.

7.5c That the Quote from Allscope Communications be funded and paid for by the Body Corporate within 14 days following the outcome for Quote# 8034 16th April 2025 TOTAL: $11,533.50

• [15] 8. That the Adjudicator declare Motion 2, held on 16 April 2025 and then passed at the EGM on April 2025 and any resolution arising from it, as void and of no effect

• [16] This dispute has been continuing over a several years, resulting in a number of adjudicator decisions. Unfortunately, the dispute remains unresolved. A recent adjudicators decision dated 2 May 2024 provides a useful background summary regarding the dispute and is repeated below.[1]
• [17] In January 2020, the body corporate engaged a firm named Australian Leak Detection (ALD) which found that water was entering the building via the rooftop terraces of Mr Ehrlich's lot 38 and neighbouring lot 37. The body corporate then engaged Remedial Property Solutions to, inter alia, replace the waterproof membranes on the lot 37 and 38 terraces and retile them pursuant to resolutions passed at an extraordinary general meeting on 5 June 2020.
• [18] Work commenced in July 2020 and was carried to completion in lot 37 to the satisfaction of the owner,[2] but ceased in lot 38 following the removal of the old tiles and installation of a new membrane, due to a dispute with the owner of lot 38 about the replacement tiles to be installed by the body corporate. The body corporate committee says Mr Ehrlich has denied it further access to lot 38 for the purpose of completing the work, which Mr Ehrlich does not deny. Mr Ehrlich lodged an adjudication application in March 2021 seeking to compel the body corporate to install his preferred tiles, but the adjudicator dismissed that outcome, not satisfied the body corporate acted unreasonably when selecting the replacement tiles.[3]
• [19] The water ingress to Mr Ehrlich's lot continued or resumed despite the new membrane on his terrace. ALD carried out further tests and on 21 December 2020 attributed the ingress to penetrations in the wall around the stairwell linking the terrace to the rest of Mr Ehrlich's lot below, and defects in the roof over the stairwell. Though ALD carried out rain testing of the new membrane, it did not report any problems with it. On 20 March 2023, I ordered the body corporate to replace the stairwell roof.[4]
• [20] In December 2021, the body corporate authorised further works that included the replacement of the membrane and tiles upon neighbouring lot 39's rooftop terrace. That work has reportedly been completed.
• [21] At some point, the new membrane on Mr Ehrlich's terrace began to show signs of ponding and degradation, which he reported to the body corporate committee, submitting photographs of bubbling and cracks in the membrane. Remedial Property Solutions said it would inspect the cracking if allowed to access lot 38 to complete its work and the ponding would be corrected through the tiling process.[5] While Mr Ehrlich said he would allow access to his lot for the purpose of fixing problems that may be allowing water into the substrate, he was unwilling to allow the completion of the work authorised by the body corporate.[6]
• [22] Manatech Property Services inspected Mr Ehrlich's lot for mould in April 2022, finding it in the master bedroom and walk in robe where the ceiling and wall linings were found to be saturated. Manatech suggested the likely source of the water ingress was degraded and missing flashings on an external wall of the unit above the affected corner of the bedroom, though it apparently did not test that hypothesis as it went on to recommend that the source of the ingress should be identified.
• [23] In May 2022, Waterstop Solutions inspected the rooftop terrace of lot 38 and concluded that the new membrane had been damaged by moisture transferring through the screed from neighbouring terraces. Waterstop had previously warned of this risk in March 2020 and recommended sealing the bases of the walls separating the terraces, but the body corporate elected to proceed with the approach recommended by Remedial Property Solutions instead, which apparently did not include this step.
• [24] Also in May, Mr Ehrlich had the director of Platinum Hydraulics inspect his rooftop terrace. He noted "multiple non compliant issues pertaining to inadequate drainage, insufficient falls in pavement to primary outlets and overflows and the failure of the waterproofing".[7] Remedial Property Solutions had previously noted that a single drain may not be adequate for lot 38's terrace,[8] and had elected to install a linear grate instead of a second drain to reduce costs.[9]
• [25] In August 2022, Tri Plumbing inspected Mr Ehrlich's lot and blamed mould and water damage on ingress from defective flashing outside the master bedroom and failed waterproofing on all rooftop terraces.
• [26] In November 2023, Pacific Plumbing and Design inspected Mr Ehrlich's rooftop terrace and found the existing drainage to be adequate, but noted there was no second drain to allow for the possibility that the existing drain might become blocked. It recommended the installation of a second drain.
• [27] In February 2024, the body corporate had Buildcheck inspect Mr Ehrlich's lot to answer questions about the source of the water entering lot 38, the role played by the waterproofing on the rooftop terraces and the defective flashing identified by Manatech and Tri Plumbing, whether water was migrating beneath the walls separating the terraces as suggested by Waterstop Solutions, and what works were necessary to stop the ingress. Buildcheck reported that the water is primarily entering Mr Ehrlich's home through the defective membrane on his rooftop, which should have been tiled over and had been degraded by UV exposure and weather events. Buildcheck said the defective flashing has contributed to a minor degree, if at all, though it should nevertheless be repaired, and it found no sign water was migrating from neighbouring terraces, saying that was unlikely given their new waterproof membranes. Buildcheck recommended removing the new membrane from lot 38's terrace, repairing the substrate, refurbishing the drainage system, and installing a new membrane and tiles.
• [28] Mr Ehrlich objected to Buildcheck's finding that the membrane had degraded because it was left exposed. He submitted an email from a committee member who identified the membrane as WPA 230UV,[10] and a technical data sheet that described WPA 230UV as UV stable and suitable for exposed roof applications. I forwarded that material to the body corporate and asked whether it altered Buildcheck's assessment. Buildcheck replied that the product may be UV stable, but it should only be subjected to occasional traffic, such as for maintenance. Mr Ehrlich responded that he has only been on the rooftop since the new membrane was installed for the purpose of bringing tradespeople, some of whom required repeat visits.
• [29] In his decision dated 2 May 2024[11] the adjudicator dismissed most of the outcomes sought by the applicant because he has been preventing the body corporate from completing the remedial work to his rooftop terrace that might have resolved the primary source of the water ingress to his home. The only order made in that case was that the body corporate must repair the defective flashing above the bedroom of lot 38.

• [30] The Commissioner referred the application for an interim order to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [31] An adjudicator has jurisdiction generally to make orders that are just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute between certain parties about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[12] The parties to the dispute are the body corporate and the owner of a lot. This is a combination of parties provided for in the Act.[13] This dispute concerns actions by the respondents and includes claims about the body corporate's exercise of powers and contraventions of the Act. I am thus satisfied this is a dispute within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and within the jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[14]
• [32] An adjudicator is expressly given the power to make an interim order "if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[15]
• [33] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent before an interim order is decided. However pursuant to my investigative powers under section of the Act, I invited the body corporate to make submissions regarding the interim outcomes sought by the applicant.

• [34] The Body Corporate states that it does not propose to respond to each of the requested outcomes outlined in the applicant's submission as many of these have been previously addressed and resolved by way of Adjudicators' Orders 1274-2021[16] and 0222-2023[17].
• [35] The body corporate notes that the applicants adjudication application 1274-2021, was dismissed on 2 May 2024. That application specifically requested that various contractors be engaged to undertake various items of work in his lot. However at paragraphs [22] to [25] of that decision, the adjudicator found that contractors had been engaged by the body corporate to undertake remedial works but were being denied entry by the applicant.
• [36] The adjudicator also noted the applicant's disquietude regarding the chosen contractor and pointed out that if the works ultimately prove unsuccessful, as feared by the applicant, the Body Corporate will remain responsible for undertaking any further corrective action.
• [37] The body corporate also says that in accordance with the observations of the adjudicator at paragraph [22] of the above Order, the Body Corporate has taken reasonable steps to facilitate access to the Lot in compliance with Section 163 of the Act, but the applicant continues to refuse access. Should he continue to do so, it may be necessary for the Body Corporate to enforce its rights under section 163 of the Act.
• [38] The body corporate rejects the applicant's contentions that the works were not properly authorised and that it does not have sufficient funds to do the works. The engagement of the contractor was duly authorised at the 2020 EGM, as previously submitted and confirmed in the decision of Adjudicator Stone (Ref: 1274-2021 at [22]).
• [39] As a result of the Applicant's continued refusal to provide access, the cost of the works has increased from the original $32,902.05, to $77,033.32 due to increases in the cost of labour and materials, and the additional requirement to remove the existing membrane and bedding. The membrane and bedding installed as a replacement for the original membrane now has to be removed and replaced.
• [40] The Body Corporate resolved to approve the revised expenditure at the adjourned EGM held on 23 April 2025, and subsequently reconvened in accordance with legislative requirements, as stated on page 2 of the meeting notice.
• [41] Funds are available in the sinking fund budget for the subject works. It was resolved to approve the quote of $77,003.23 and the amount of $80,000 has been allocated in the budget.

• [42] The only issue to decide at this time is whether interim orders are warranted. I am empowered to issue an interim order if I am satisfied "on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[18] If I am satisfied an order is necessary, I may make an interim order that is just and equitable. Adjudicators often make interim orders in the form of a temporary injunction (an order not to do something) to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of an application.
• [43] To determine if it is just and equitable to make an interim order, there must be some reason in law to make an order. For this, I must consider the substantive issue in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered. At this stage, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their legal arguments will be successful.[19] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success to justify making an order.
• [44] I must also consider the practical reasons for and the likely effects of an interim order. This is known as assessing the balance of convenience between the parties. To do this, I must consider the inconvenience or harm to the body corporate if I do not make an interim order but final orders later determine the respondents have contravened the CMS or the Act. I must weigh that against the harm to the respondents if I grant an interim order and the body corporate is later unsuccessful in its application for final orders.
• [45] Accordingly, to determine whether I am satisfied an interim order is warranted and appropriate, for each of the Disputed Motions, I will consider whether a serious legal issue has been presented with sufficient likelihood of success and I will also weigh the balance of convenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.
• [46] In summary, the interim outcomes sought by the applicant are as follows:
  1. That the Body Corporate be restrained from acting upon or implementing any resolution purporting to approve additional funding or authorization of works for the rooftop terrace of Lot 38, until final orders are made in this application.
     1. That the Body Corporate be restrained from engaging any contractor unless such contractor has been nominated or approved in accordance with the Community Management Statement (CMS), and supervised by the consultant nominated by the Applicant.
     2. That any proposed works or expenditure relating to Lot 38's rooftop be paused and all contracts or allocations of funds suspended until proper disclosure of the updated scope and funding arrangements to all owners.
• [47] This application repeats a number of outcomes sought by the applicant in their previous adjudication application Ref 1274-2021,[20] which was dismissed on 2 May 2024. That application specifically requested that various contractors be engaged to undertake various items of work in his lot. However in that decision, the adjudicator found that contractors had been engaged by the body corporate to undertake remedial works but were being denied entry by the applicant.
• [48] Paragraphs [22] to [25] of that decision read as follows:

[22] Consequently, there is no need to order the body corporate to carry out this work. The body corporate will do it when Mr Ehrlich allows it. While Mr Ehrlich may disagree with the body corporate's approach to the work, it is nevertheless work the body corporate is obliged to carry out in some form, and the specific approach the body corporate has taken was properly authorised at a general meeting. In these circumstances, Mr Ehrlich must allow the body corporate access to his lot pursuant to section 163 of the Act notwithstanding that he might prefer the body corporate met its maintenance obligations in some other way.

[23] If the work is ultimately unsuccessful as Mr Ehrlich apparently fears it will be, the body corporate will be required to correct it. That is surely preferable to leaving the rooftop in its present condition and allowing the water ingress to lot 38 to continue indefinitely.

[24] To the extent that Mr Ehrlich's opposition to the work is due to his preference for a different tile, he has already had his arguments on that point dismissed by Adjudicator Miskinis.

[25] If Mr Ehrlich continues to oppose the body corporate's entry to his lot for the purpose of carrying out the work to his terrace, I suggest the body corporate might be more assertive with its rights under section 163 of the Act. Buildcheck described the rectification works as "urgent" due to the risk that continued water ingress may cause concrete spalling, which could put the body corporate in contravention of its obligation to maintain roofing structures and essential supporting framework in structurally sound condition.

• [49] It is evident from the above decision that Build Check was engaged at the request of the lot owner, with the resultant report provided by Build Check, outlining the scope of works that were necessary. It is also evident that the Body Corporate expressed its preparedness to undertake necessary repairs including replacement of the waterproofing membrane and tiles.
• [50] The lot owner is required to permit the Body Corporate access to the lot in order to carry out said maintenance, and if access is not provided, the Body Corporate may rely upon its statutory rights of entry under section 163 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act).
• [51] From the material provided it would appear to me that the Body Corporate has taken reasonable steps to facilitate access to the Lot in accordance with Section 163 of the Act. I note that an entry notice was issued on 14 June 2024. However the owner responded 25 June, indicating that he was only willing to grant access on certain conditions.
• [52] The applicant continues to ventilate various concerns about the proposed work which the body corporate says are unfounded. It also believes some of his demands are unreasonable.
• [53] In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the body corporate to obtain quotes, choose a contractor and make payment. In the District Court appeal decision Golden Sands Highrise v Galtos & Anor [2000] QDC 416 Judge Robin made the following comments regarding the obligations of the body corporate to undertake repair work to a particular lot:

Where repair work has to be done at the expense of A whereas B obtains the practical benefit, or is subjected to the outcome of the work, I think the adjudicator was perfectly right to decline to stipulate that work ought to be planned and done to the satisfaction of (the lot owner). Whoever pays the piper ought to be able to call the tune. In my opinion, the body corporate ought to have a reasonably wide discretion in determining how it carries out its obligation. It may well be objectionable that the lot owners as a body corporate should have to pay beyond the minimum necessary to provide a building that does not leak.

• [54] Crucially, if the works ultimately prove unsuccessful, as feared by the applicant, the Body Corporate will remain responsible for undertaking any further corrective action.
• [55] The Body Corporate indicated its willingness to undertake the necessary work but says it is not willing to do work other than that which it was obliged to undertake by law, in excess of its statutory obligations or contrary to previous adjudicators' orders.
• [56] It is evident that the applicant subsequently attended the Annual General Meeting in September 2024 for the purpose of raising a matter not listed on the agenda. Present at the meeting were the Chairperson, the Strata Manager, and the Applicant. The Applicant sought to discuss the prospect of engaging an independent contractor to act as an intermediary between himself, the Body Corporate, and the contractor appointed to carry out the previously approved works. As this matter was not included on the agenda, no resolution could be passed. The Owner then departed the meeting, resulting in a loss of quorum and the adjournment of the AGM.
• [57] The applicant continued to deny access, further delaying the remedial work on the applicant's lot. The Body Corporate's lawyers wrote the applicant requesting access under section 163. Correspondence from the Body Corporate's lawyers dated 14 April 2025 and 1 May 2025, included the following:

in the absence of your unequivocal confirmation, particularly confirmation that you will give the body corporate and its contractors all reasonable and necessary access to undertake the necessary maintenance work, it is unreasonable to either expect that the body corporate will attempt to gain access to your lot to undertake the maintenance works or engage RPS for that purpose, without the benefit of a formal notice of entry, alternately and preferably an order requiring you to give access; and, in the circumstances, the body corporate will not do so; and

The body corporate repeats its reservation of rights identified in the penultimate paragraph of the letter dated 14 April 2025. In short, until you co-operate, these maintenance works will likely remain incomplete and at your risk.[21]

• [58] The applicant also seeks to argue that the remedial works were not properly authorised and that sufficient funds do not exist. However I believe these assertions are without merit. I note that engagement of the contractor was duly authorised at the 2020 EGM, as previously confirmed by Adjudicator Stone in Order 1274-2021 at [22][22].
• [59] The body corporate states that as a result of the Applicant's continued refusal to provide access, the cost of the works has increased from the original $32,902.05to $77,033.32. This is due to the increases in the cost of labour and materials over the last 5 years, as well as the additional need to now replace the existing membrane and bedding, which was installed as a replacement for the original membrane, prior to reinstating this stage of works and proceeding to tiling.
• [60] The EGM was adjourned due to lack of quorum and reconvened in accordance with legislative requirements, as stated on page 2 of the meeting notice. It is evident that at the adjourned EGM held 23 April 2025, the Body Corporate resolved to approve the revised expenditure. It is also evident that the Applicant erroneously refers to the Committee's $19,500 spending limit as the relevant threshold, when in fact the expenditure was validly approved by owners at a general meeting.
• [61] The explanatory notes accompanying the agenda also state that state that funds are available in the sinking fund budget with $80,000 allocated for the work, and that the motion was to approve the quote for $77,003.23.[23]
• [62] While the applicant alleges that the body corporate has failed to comply with expert advice and reports, it is my understanding that the parties agreed for SDX to act as an intermediary, to avoid ongoing disputes and the body corporate did not agree to take advice from the applicant's appointed contractor.
• [63] The applicant says that he nominated SDX Engineers to supervise remedial works and believes that pursuant to by-law 7.6, the body corporate is obliged to accept that nomination. However I have perused the community management statement and there is no by-law 7.6. What the applicant is referring to is clause 7.6 of the Architectural Code, which is Schedule D to the community management statement. The Architectural Code provides that if an owner wishes to undertake building work on their lot at their own cost, they must give the body corporate an engagement notice of their preferred contractor. The body corporate has 21 days to advise whether they approve of that contractor. A dispute may be dealt with in accordance with clause 7.10 of the Code. It does not provide that the body corporate becomes responsible for the cost of employing such a contractor.
• [64] Although the applicant alleges that irreparable harm may occur if the requested interim orders are not made, I believe that the current circumstances are very much the same as they were when the adjudication decision in Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166 was made. In that decision the adjudicator stated:

[23 ] If the work is ultimately unsuccessful as Mr Ehrlich apparently fears it will be, the body corporate will be required to correct it. That is surely preferable to leaving the rooftop in its present condition and allowing the water ingress to lot 38 to continue indefinitely.

• [65] It would appear to me that the planned works are in accordance with the original repair recommendations contained in the testing report produced by Australian Leak Detection. If the works are unsuccessful, the Body Corporate remains responsible for rectification.
• [66] The application for final outcomes remains outstanding. If the application is not withdrawn, it will be determined in due course.

[1] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[2] Paragon on Arthur [2023] QBCCMCmr 114 at [48]- [49].

[5] Emails from Chris Hampson, Remedial Property Solutions, to Preston Hoad, Queensland Building and Construction Commission, 25 May 2021 & from Laurence Vecchio, committee chairperson, to Stacey O'Flynn, body corporate manager, 8 April 2022.

[6] Emails from Mr Ehrlich to Stacey O'Flynn, 8 & 26 April 2022.

[7] Email from Adam Williams, Managing Director of Platinum Hydraulics, to Mr Ehrlich, 19 May 2022.

[8] Email from Rose Jocumsen, body corporate manager, to "Sean" of Abstract Plumbing, 16 June 2020.

[9] Email from Chris Hampson to Preston Hoad, 25 May 2021.

[10] Email from Laurence Vecchio to Stacey O'Flynn, 8 April 2022.

[11] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[14] Sections 226, 228 and 276 of the Act

[16] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[17] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 167

[19] Although an applicant must identify a genuine legal issue to be decided, the granting of an interim order by itself does not indicate whether or not an applicant will ultimately be successful on their application for final orders.

[20] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[22] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[23] Attachments F, G & H to submission