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

MAINTENANCE, PROPERTY DAMAGE - Where property damaged by water ingress - Where body corporate proposes to undertake repairs but the lot owner questions the scope of repairs and refuses access.

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

1. I order that within 6 months of the date of this order, the Body Corporate is to engage tradesmen holding appropriate QBCC licenses to undertake rooftop repair and drainage works.
2. I order that the body corporate is to ensure that all rooftop works including drainage, comply with the National Construction Code (including the Building Code of Australia and the Plumbing Code of Australia) by obtaining proper certifications for work done. In particular it is to ensure that the roof drainage system is adequate to handle severe, infrequent storm events and that any overflow drainage outlet is compliant with AS3500.3
3. I order that within 6 months of the date of this order, and pursuant to section 281 of the Act, the body corporate is to engage tradesmen holding appropriate QBCC licenses (where required), to undertake the following repair work:

(a) Replacement of water damaged gyprock and any other water damaged elements in the Applicant's lot. This includes replacement of the water damaged gyprock referred to in the Timmers Quote 879502 August 15, 2022. It also includes replacement of gyprock that has become water damaged since the quote was obtained, or water damaged gyprock that was not mentioned in that quote.

(b) Removal of mould within the applicant's lot followed by certification from an appropriately qualified person that the interior is free of mould.

(c) Repairs or replacement of electrical cabling that has been damaged by water ingress, as recommended by a licensed electrician.

(d) Replacement or repair of electronic items affected and damaged from water ingress from 2022 as recommended by a licensed technician.

1. The Applicant is to grant access to the Body Corporate and its contractors to perform the above works when he is given a Notice in accordance with section 163 of the Act.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

[1] The applicant seeks orders against the body corporate to rectify and address the consequences of persistent water ingress to his lot 38.

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 No
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."
5. 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.

1. 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:

1. the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act),
2. the National Construction Code, and
3. that all such works be:

certified by a qualified hydraulic engineer, executed by a licensed plumbing contractor (noting RPS lacks the required QBCC license), and accompanied by all relevant Form 16s or compliance certificates on completion. the Engagement Notice dated 14 March 2025, and the Engagement Notice dated 14 March 2025, and engagement Nomination dated April 4, 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.

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

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

[2] The applicant was previously unsuccessful[1] in seeking the following interim outcomes:

• - 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.
• - 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.
• - 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] This dispute has been continuing over a several years, resulting in a number of adjudicators' decisions. Unfortunately, the dispute remains unresolved, water ingress is continuing and the applicant's lot 38 remains in a state of disrepair.

[4] The current application comprises around 900 pages and seeks around 20 outcomes. As originally submitted, this application was very lengthy and wanting in structure. Case management staff from this Office have worked with the applicant to tighten and clarify the scope of the application and to particularise the outcomes sought.

[5] A previous adjudicator's decision dated 2 May 2024 provides a useful background summary regarding the dispute.[2]

[6] The applicant has experienced persistent water ingress to his lot 38 since around 2019. 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 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.

[7] The minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting subsequently held on 5 June 2020 record that the following motion was carried.

Motion 3. Building Rectification Works (Lots 4, 37, 38 & 39)

That, subject to Motion 2[3] being passed, the Body Corporate approve structural building rectification works as quoted by Remedial Property Solutions Qld totalling- $93,919.89 (incl. GST). This Contractor is authorised to carry out the work as per the attached quotations.

Payment will be made from the Sinking Fund once either the Chairperson or nominated.

Committee members authorises the work as being completed to their satisfaction.

RESOLVED By Ordinary Resolution Yes 15 No 0 Abstain O.

[8] Work commenced in July 2020 and was carried to completion in lot 37 to the satisfaction of the owner,[4] but ceased in lot 38 following the removal of the old tiles and installation of a new membrane. This was due to the applicant's objection to the replacement tiles to be installed by the body corporate.

[9] The applicant says that there are various defects in the drainage and waterproofing installed under the 2020 EGM authorisation referred to above. He raises a number of complaints about the preliminary works undertaken by Remedial Property Solutions including alleged defective works[5] - alleged installation of a non-compliant channel drain in 2020, which they later proposed to alter "without engineering approval".

[10] However, 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.

[11] Although a new membrane had been installed on his roof terrace, water ingress into the applicant's lot has continued. A firm named Australian Leak Detection (ALD) carried out further tests and on 21 December 2020 and 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 at that point in time. On 20 March 2023, the body corporate was ordered to replace the stairwell roof.

[12] In around 2020 a new waterproofing was applied to Mr Ehrlich's terrace, but it has been left exposed because he would not agree with installation of the tiles chosen by the body corporate. Subsequently, the "new membrane" which had been applied to Mr Ehrlich's rooftop terrace, but left exposed, began to show signs of degradation. He reported this to the body corporate committee, submitting photographs of bubbling and cracks in the membrane.

[13] Remedial Property Solutions said it would inspect the cracking if they were allowed to access lot 38 to complete its work and the "ponding" would be corrected with screed during the tiling process. While Mr Ehrlich said he would allow access to his lot for the purpose of fixing problems that may be allowing water to seep through the substrate, he was unwilling to allow the completion of the work authorised by the body corporate.

[14] Under the 2020 EGM resolution, the Body Corporate engaged Remedial Property Solutions (RPS) to install a linear drain on Lot 38's terrace.

[15] Over the years numerous professionals and tradesmen have examined lot 38 with a view to identifying possible causes of water ingress, water damage to the lot, and possible remedial solutions.

[16] Manatech Property Services inspected Mr Ehrlich's lot in April 2022, finding mould it in the master bedroom and walk in robe where the ceiling and wall linings were found to be wet. 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 went on to recommend further investigation to definitively determine the source of the ingress.

[17] In May 2022, Waterstop Solutions inspected the rooftop terrace of lot 38. They noted that the "new" membrane was damaged and said this may be attributable to moisture transferring through the screed from neighbouring terraces. The applicant says that 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.

[18] Also in May 2022, Mr Ehrlich had Platinum Hydraulics inspect his rooftop terrace. The inspector noted "multiple non-compliant issues pertaining to inadequate drainage, insufficient falls in pavement to primary outlets and overflows and the failure of the waterproofing".[6] Remedial Property Solutions had previously noted that a single drain may not be adequate for lot 38's terrace,[7] and had elected to install a linear grate instead of a second drain to reduce costs.[8]

[19] In August 2022, a firm named Tri Plumbing inspected Mr Ehrlich's lot and expressed the view that mould and water damage was attributable to ingress from defective flashing outside the master bedroom and failed waterproofing on all rooftop terraces.

[20] 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.

[21] The applicant says that findings by various experts (including Pacific Plumbing and Design, SDX Engineers[9] Docs 47-50) confirm the drainage performs inadequately and is noncompliant with the Building Code of Australian and Plumbing Code.

[22] The applicant argues that any changes to drainage (such as installation or removal of a linear grate drain) require new hydraulic engineering certification. He says that the drainage is not a mere variation, but a materially different methodology unsupported by independent engineering.

[23] The applicant further argues that the installation of the linear drain by the Body Corporate is not "maintenance" but constitutes an "improvement" and the Body Corporate is responsible for ensuring the works:

1. Comply with all applicable legal and regulatory standards; and

2. Are remedied were defective, including correcting non-compliant installation.

[24] He states that the linear drain on Lot 38's terrace does not comply with AS 3500, specifically failing overflow drainage requirements and functionally inadequate to prevent ingress. [10] [11] He says the body corporate should ensure that the linear drain is rectified by a licensed plumbing contractor in compliance with AS3500 and this should be supervised and certified by an independent engineer or building consultant.

[25] In February 2024, the body corporate engaged Buildcheck Engineering and Building Consultants (Buildcheck) to inspect Mr Ehrlich's lot to provide advice regarding 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.

[26] On 7 March 2024 a Report was prepared by Buildcheck for the body corporate. It's observed that multiple internal areas had been damaged by water ingress. It expressed the view that leaks have mostly originated from the tiled terrace located directly above, which effectively acts as the roof of the unit. Although a new membrane had previously been applied and should have been tiled over but has now been degraded by UV exposure, ponding and various weather events. The membrane therefore requires replacement.

[27] Buildcheck also said that defective flashings may have contributed to a minor degree and should be repaired. Buildcheck found no sign water was migrating from neighbouring terraces, saying that this was unlikely given their new waterproof membranes. Buildcheck recommended removing the 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,[12] and a technical data sheet that described WPA 230UV as UV stable and suitable for exposed roof applications. An adjudicator 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.

[29] In his decision dated 2 May 2024[13] the adjudicator dismissed most of the outcomes sought by the applicant because the applicant prevented 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 applicant subsequently lodged this application seeking both interim and final orders.

[31] On 30 July 2025 I dismissed the application for interim orders and stated that the current circumstances were 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.

[32] I also expressed the view that the planned works were (1) in accordance with the original repair recommendations contained in the testing report produced by Australian Leak Detection; and (2) If the works are unsuccessful, the Body Corporate remains responsible for rectification.

[33] The applicant subsequently lodged further information and documentary material with this Office and on 27 August 2025 and his application was amended, including section 9 "Grounds for the Application".

[34] He noted that Application 1274/2021 dealt with lot 38 rooftop works, but says that since then, "latent defects" have been identified in the drainage and waterproofing installed under the 2020 EGM authorisation.

[35] The applicant says that expert findings (Pacific Hydraulic Declaration, SDX Report, and Forensic H₂O analysis[14] confirm that the drainage does not perform adequately and is noncompliant with the NCC. He believes that having regard to Motion 2 of the April 2025 EGM, the body corporate has acknowledged that the 2020 works are deficient.

[36] The applicant alleges that the body corporate has failed to comply with their obligations including the following obligations under Schedule D of the CMS:

1. Clause 5.6 - "the right of an owner to object and protest to a proposal for building works".
2. Clause 6.7 - "the obligation of the Committee to respond to an Engagement Notice within 21 days".

[37] The applicant believes that Schedule E of the CMS designates the terrace as exclusive use common property and says this makes the Body Corporate responsible for maintenance of this area because it is a roofing structure which incorporates a waterproofing membrane. The applicant believes that carrying out drainage works would wrongfully shift responsibility for future maintenance work to him.

[38] The applicant says the respondent failed to obtain or circulate multiple quotes. Motion 2 presented only a single quotation from Remedial Property Solutions (RPS), exceeding $77,000. However, he says that section 160 of the module mandates multiple quotations for works above the major spending limit.

[39] The applicant says the Body Corporate failed to disclose to owners, or act upon, the professional advice of SDX Engineers, H₂O Forensic, and Pacific Plumbing - each of whom warned that the proposed scope may not comply with the relevant Australian Standards for drainage. He says that by proceeding regardless, "the Body Corporate exposed owners to the risk of noncompliant works."

[40] Motion 2 attributed the increased costs solely to "delays" and "rising labour and material costs". However, the applicant argues that the primary reason for cost escalation was a change in Methodology including a "two-layer waterproofing system" (above and below screed) and revised drainage arrangements.

[41] He believes that the rooftop terrace of Lot 38 is exclusive use common property, making the Body Corporate responsible for structural elements, membranes, and drainage. He says that under s 152 and s 159 BCCMA, the Body Corporate must maintain these elements and this responsibility cannot be contracted out or shifted to the lot owner.

[42] The applicant says that section 163 of the Act requires that a Notice of Entry has "lawful General Meeting" approval, and should include date/time, purpose, and notice. In his opinion Doc 45 (Apr 2025) and Doc 46 (May 2025) failed to meet these requirements.

[43] He also says that entry notices (Doc 26) and licences (Docs 54, 55) reveal that the Body Corporate relies on a concreter and tiler - neither licensed in plumbing or drainage to determine drainage compliance. He says statements such as "RPS advises they will ensure suffiicient fall to this drain" demonstrate an "unlawful delegation of statutory obligations to unqualified persons".

[44] In conclusion the applicant says he does not seek additional advantage, but only that the rooftop terrace be repaired and maintained in accordance with the National Construction Code, plumbing and building standards, and "the covenant established in Schedule D, clause 4, which binds both the Body Corporate and all owners as mutual obligations". The necessary works must be undertaken by licensed contractors and supervised by an appropriately qualified and independent professional, so that compliance is assured, and latent defects avoided.

[45] 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[15] and 0222-2023.[16]

[46] The body corporate has accepted responsibility for undertaking necessary repairs and maintenance to the rooftop membrane and tiles but is frustrated by the Lot Owner's ongoing refusal to grant access to their property to undertake repairs. It refers to prior Adjudicators' Orders that established the Body Corporate's responsibility for the maintenance and its right to enforce entry under Section 163 of the Act.

[47] The Body Corporate also refutes the Lot Owner's assertions that the work was improperly authorized or that sufficient funds are unavailable, noting that the continued delays have significantly increased the project cost. The submission concludes by requesting the Adjudicator dismiss the application and order the Lot Owner to immediately provide access for the approved and urgent rectification work.

[48] The body corporate notes that the applicant's 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.

[49] 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.

[50] 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.

[51] 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]).

[52] 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.

[53] 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.

[54] 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.

[55] The applicant incorrectly relies on a non-existent **"**By-law 7.6" which is actually a clause in the Code of Conduct and is not enforceable as a stand-alone by-law.

[56] The Body Corporate did not agree to take advice from the applicant's contractor (Mr. Roberts) and is not obligated to accept that opinion, especially since conflicting expert opinions exist (e.g., Buildcheck). The planned works are in accordance with the original repair recommendations from Australian Leak Detection.

[57] While the rooftop terrace is part of the Lot, the waterproofing membrane remains the Body Corporate's responsibility. The BC notes the applicant inconsistently claims the scope is excessive while simultaneously demanding additional work beyond what was approved.

[58] The submission concludes by requesting the Adjudicator Order the Lot Owner to grant access to the BC and its contractors to perform the approved works without further delay.

[59] A submission was received from the owner of lot 22 regarding an unresolved water ingress and mould issue. He says that significant water ingress and mould discovered in Unit 22, located beneath lot 38. The water damage was discovered on March 1, 2024, when the owners returned after being away from late January 2024. Upon return they found water damage and mould growth affecting ceilings, walls, cabinetry, and personal belongings. Heavy rainfall occurred during their absence.

[60] hey, engaged All Aces Cleaning & Restoration, who conducted an inspection and remediation assessment in March 2024. Their report documented significant moisture ingress affecting ceilings, walls, and joinery, along with mould contamination consistent with prolonged exposure.

[61] A subsequent inspection in March 2024, revealed that moisture levels had nearly doubled since the initial inspection. They also found moss present on the cinder block wall behind the gyprock which they have been told, is a strong indicator of ongoing water ingress. They believe that the water ingress must be rectified before remediation works take place.

[62] They suspect the leak is associated with the roof structure or upper level above lot 38. They ask that the adjudicator's decision:

1. Note that the damage pattern across Units 22 and 37 points to an issue likely associated with the roof above Unit 38, and

2. addresses the need for a proper investigation of any roof defects to prevent ongoing damage and further health risks.

[63] On 23 October 2025, the applicant made submissions in response which I have summarised below.

[64] He says the Body Corporate breached its statutory duty to maintain and repair common property and knew of water ingress issues as early as October 2020

[65] The applicant also believes that the Body Corporate engaged unlicensed contractors (RPS) for regulated plumbing and drainage work.

[66] The Applicant asserts that the rooftop terrace and drainage is non-compliant with the NCC Vol. 1 Cl. A2.6 and A2.7 in the following respects:

Drainage is inadequate and non-compliant with AS/NZS 3500.3.

Surface falls are below the required 1:100 gradient (0.67:100 vs required 1:100).

Flashings, membranes, and penetrations are defective or unsealed.

[67] The applicant also believes that the Body Corporate intends to remove the linear drain improvement installed in 2020, which had been the basis for a prior finding of "adequate" drainage. At the same time lot 37 will retain dual drains while Lot 38 is denied equivalent drainage.

[68] 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.[17] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[18]

[69] As mentioned above, this dispute has been continuing over a several years, resulting in a number of adjudicators' decisions, but remains unresolved.

[70] The current application comprises around 900 pages and seeks around 20 outcomes. Case management staff from this Office have worked with the applicant to tighten and clarify the scope of the application and to particularise the outcomes sought.

[71] The application repeats a number of outcomes sought by the applicant in their previous adjudication application Ref 1274-2021,[19] 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.

[72] 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.

[73] It is evident from the above decision that Build Check was engaged at the request of the Body Corporate, with the resultant report dated 7 March 2024, outlining the scope of works that were necessary. It is also evident that the Body Corporate expressed its preparedness to undertake repairs including replacement of the waterproofing membrane and tiles.

[74] It was also noted that 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 Act.

[75] 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, but the owner responded on 25 June, indicating that he was only willing to grant access on certain conditions. However, I am of the view that this was a valid Notice.

[76] 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.

[77] 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.

[78] It would appear to me that, subject to my comments regarding drainage in the paragraph below, the planned works are generally in accordance with the original repair recommendations contained in the testing report produced by Australian Leak Detection. I believe the body corporate has indicated its willingness to comply with its obligations to undertake repairs to the applicant's lot. It should also be remembered that the body corporate must act in the collective interest of all lot owners and must ensure that expenditure is in accordance with the Act and Accommodation module.

[79] 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. To avoid any misunderstanding regarding the scope of the repair work, I will make a number of orders requested by the applicant. However, I am of the view that numerous orders requested by the applicant are not required.

[80] It is evident that the applicant attended the Annual General Meeting in September 2024 for the purpose of discussing the subject matter of this application. raising a matter not listed on the agenda. 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. However, 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 which was subsequently reconvened.

[81] I note that the applicant has 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.[20]

[82] The applicant seeks to argue that the remedial works were not properly authorized. 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][21].

[83] 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 $32,902.05 to $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 membrane and bedding, which was installed as a replacement for the original membrane, prior to reinstating this stage of works and proceeding to tiling.

[84] While two quotes are generally required where proposed spending exceeds the relevant limit for major spending,[22] subsection 163(6) of the Accommodation Module provides that if, for exceptional reasons, it is not practicable to obtain 2 quotations, a single quotation may be obtained and must accompany the notice of the meeting. The body corporate has previously agreed in general meeting to engage this contractor to undertake certain works, the scope of which remain substantially the same since the initial quote was given. Given the contractors previous involvement, acceptance of the contractor by a general meeting and the protracted nature of this dispute I believe it was acceptable to consider that one quote.

[85] 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 in general meeting 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.

[86] The explanatory notes accompanying the agenda 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]

[87] The applicant continues to ventilate various concerns about the proposed work. The Body Corporate indicated its willingness to undertake 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.

[88] The applicant alleges that the body corporate has failed to comply with expert advice and a number of expert Reports. One of the more recent Inspection Reports was prepared on 14 March 2025 by Structural Diagnostics Pty Ltd (SDx) at the request of the applicant. It is my understanding that the applicant wished to appoint SDX Engineers to act as an intermediary to avoid ongoing disputes, however the body corporate says it wishes to take advice from consultants and contractors engaged by them, rather than from a contractor appointed by the applicant.

[89] 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.

[90] 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.

Inspection Report by Structural Diagnostics Pty Ltd (SDx)

[91] Nevertheless, I believe for the purposes of resolving this dispute, it is helpful to review the Inspection Report which was prepared by Structural Diagnostics Pty Ltd (SDx) at the request of the applicant on 14 March 2025.

[92] Similarly, it is helpful to review the Inspection Report which was prepared for the body corporate by Buildcheck Engineering and Building Consultants on 7 March 2024, regarding multiple internal areas that had been damaged by water leakage.

[93] The Inspection Report was prepared by Structural Diagnostics Pty Ltd (SDx) at the request of the applicant. A specific purpose of the SDx engagement was to review of the rectification proposal, outlined in the quotation prepared by Remedial Property Solutions dated 2 June 2024. Other purposes were to identify potential sources of water or moisture ingress and to provide further recommendations as appropriate.

Third-party assessment of the existing hydraulic capacity of the roof terrace drainage

confirmed the existing single 100 mm diameter drainage outlet satisfies requirements of the

National Construction Code (NCC) for stormwater drainage for a rainfall intensity of AEP

5%. Current drainage provisions do not however satisfy drainage requirements for a rainfall.

The existing horizontal overflow drainage outlet (Appendix A: Image 69-70) is non-compliant and does not meet NCC or AS/NZS 3500.3 requirements. [24]

A cursory level survey conducted by SDx showed an approximate surface level difference.

of 60 mm between the drainage outlet and furthermost point on the existing terrace surface,

inside the western upstand wall separating the metal roof, with a horizontal distance of

approximately 9000 mm, with an approximate surface fall of 0.67:100 determined. A

compliant surface fall of 1:100 (minimum) must be achieved in accordance with AS 4654.2.

An increase in finished surface level, to achieve complaint fall, adjacent to the terrace door.

will further reduce the already non-complaint vertical termination height at the door sill. [25]

Water ingress was identified at the western end of the masonry upstand wall separating Units 37 and 38 (Photo 3), potentially affecting the adjacent living room ceiling in Unit 37 in addition to Unit 38.

Satellite photos taken September 2011 shows both the larger planters and two smaller planters were removed with a single separating wall remaining. We cannot determine whether the original central wall was retained or demolished with a new wall constructed

Photo 7 shows a now redundant stormwater drainage pipe - which may be utilised as an additional drainage outlet to rectify surface fall issues when relying on the existing single drainage location, with significant water or moisture penetration in the surrounding location generally. Based on the as-constructed drainage plans the pipe location is shown in Figure 4 Location 'G' (Appendix D), which serviced the deleted roof terrace planter.

[96] At pages 11 the Report identified the following non-compliant defects with the as-built waterproofing application:

1. Non-compliant surface falls in accordance with the NCC and AS 4654.2.
2. Non-compliant membrane termination in accordance with AS 4654.2.
3. Non-compliant door threshold installation in accordance with AS 4654.2.
4. Defective slab penetration sealing
5. Modification of drainage design involving non-compliant over-flow drain installation P11

Defective cladding installation observed at window heads and sills, and floor termination which must be rectified to prevent water, moisture, or condensation entrapment behind the cladding, or capillary moisture where the cladding terminates below the finished floor surface currently.

Rectification works are required to the service shaft and flashing located outside the main bedroom. Works should include the installation of appropriate flashings where the existing flashing abuts the wall face, and installation of service penetration seals to all penetrations, and

All parapet or roof flashings and capping's should be rectified to comply with AS 1562 and SA HB 39 requirements.

Whilst the proposed scope of works outlined in the RPS quotation is considered adequate within the limits of the quotation, and notwithstanding the proposed scope does not address additional defects identified by SDx as potential sources of water or moisture penetration, paragraph 5.27 summarises deficiencies and additional clarifications recommended by SDx with respect to the RPS quotation.

SDx opinion is that the proposed scope of works does not adequately address the extent of rectification works required is based on the lack of investigation to suitably identify and assess potential sources of water ingress from adjacent terraces, through upstand walls separating the terraces and defective wall cladding details to the terrace level stair walls.

Inspection Report - Buildcheck Engineering and Building Consultants

[99] On 7 March 2024 a Report was prepared by Buildcheck Engineering and Building Consultants (Buildcheck) for the body corporate. Its initial observations were that multiple internal areas had been damaged by water ingress. It expressed the view that leaks have mostly originated from the tiled terrace located directly above, which effectively acts as the roof of the unit.

[100] Observations by Buildcheck Included the following:

• There was an exposed waterproofing membrane, evidencing an unfinished work to refurbish the tile area, as no screeding and tiles have been installed. The exposed waterproofing membrane displayed generalized cracking, deterioration, and evident failure, which has been caused by continuous UV exposure and the effect of weather events.

• Waterproofing membranes applied to tiled terraces, in compliance with AS 4654 "Waterproofing membranes for external above-ground use" are considered to be "Protected Systems", which means that these membranes are not required to be UV resistant or trafficable, as the protection to the environment and abrasion is given by the tiles.

• As the terrace represents the roof section of the unit, rainfall events have caused the concrete to absorb the stormwater generated. Concrete as a porous element will hold water within the structure, allowing for leakage through cracks, gaps and joints initially, as areas of least resistance for water to pass.

• The encountered leakage has produced ceiling damage to Unit 38, presenting various evident ingress points across the different areas of the unit.

• The flashing located east of Unit 38 (main entrance) would only contribute (if any) an approximately 5 -10% of the leakage encountered in the unit, as its catchment area and potential for water ingress would be much lesser than the existing top - level terrace with no waterproofing and its reach limited only to the entrance area (bedroom corner). Regardless of the lesser contribution the flashing is to be rectified within the same works of the tiled terrace area.

[101] The Report recommended urgent rectification works, including complete removal of the waterproofing membrane, repairing of the substrate refurbishment of the drainage system, including the correction of gradients, provision of a new waterproofing membrane and tile installation in compliance with AS 4654. 1 and 2.

[102] The flashing encountered at the entrance of the property is to be removed and provided with repairs according to the encountered damage, to later seal and waterproof the area as required.

[103] Consequential internal damage repair and mould removal would be required once the tiled terrace has been rectified.

[104] There is no dispute that the waterproofing membrane now requires replacement. It was laid as an under-tile membrane.[26] Such a membrane is not generally designed to be trafficable and should be protected from damage after installation until it is covered. However, it has now been left exposed for a number of years due to the ongoing dispute between the applicant and the body corporate. Obviously, over that time it has been subject to UV exposure, pooling of rainwater and foot traffic. The applicant should be aware that concrete is a porous material and the absence of a waterproofing membrane for an extended period can lead to corrosion of the steel reinforcing within the concrete slab.[27]

[105] In their Report dated 7 March 2024, Buildcheck observed that multiple internal areas had been damaged by water leakage. It expressed the view that leaks have mostly originated from the tiled terrace located directly above, which effectively acts as the roof of the unit.

[106] At page 12 of their Report, Buildcheck recommended:

urgent rectification works, which include the complete removal of the waterproofing membrane, repairing of the substrate refurbishment of the drainage system, including the correction of gradients, provision of a new waterproofing membrane and tile installation in compliance with AS 4654.1 and 2.

[107] At page 4 of their Report, Structural Diagnostics note at paragraph 5.9:

A cursory level survey conducted by SDx showed an approximate surface level difference of 60 mm between the drainage outlet and furthermost point on the existing terrace surface, inside the western upstand wall separating the metal roof, with a horizontal distance of approximately 9000 mm, with an approximate surface fall of 0.67:100 determined. A compliant surface fall of 1:100 (minimum) must be achieved in accordance with AS 4654.2. An increase in finished surface level, to achieve complaint fall, adjacent to the terrace door will further reduce the already non-complaint vertical termination height at the door sill.

[108] Similarly, Buildcheck advised that it was necessary to repair the substrate and refurbish the drainage system, including the correction of gradients i.e., correction of falls to drainage outlets of at least of 1:100.

[109] AS4654.2 mandates adequate falls to ensure water is directed away from surfaces and it is my understanding from the various reports screeding will be applied in such a manner as to ensure the correct falls to drainage.

[110] I note that the Inspection Report by Structural Diagnostics Pty Ltd (SDx) dated 14 March 2025 includes the following findings.

Third-party assessment of the existing hydraulic capacity of the roof terrace drainage confirmed the existing single 100 mm diameter drainage outlet satisfies requirements of the National Construction Code (NCC) for stormwater drainage for a rainfall intensity of AEP 5%.

Current drainage provisions do not however satisfy drainage requirements for a rainfall intensity of AEP 1%.

The existing horizontal overflow drainage outlet (Appendix A: Image 69-70) is non-compliant and does not meet NCC or AS/NZS 3500.3 requirements. [28]

[111] I believe these findings are consistent with those made by various other experts including Pacific Plumbing and Design, which confirm the drainage performs inadequately and is noncompliant with the Building Code of Australian and Plumbing Code.

[112] The Body Corporate's adviser, Buildcheck agrees that Consequential internal damage repair and mould removal would be required once the tiled terrace has been rectified.

Specific Final Outcomes Sought by the Applicant

[113] I will now deal with the specific outcomes sought by the applicant.

[114] I do not propose to declare that the Body Corporate has not acted reasonably in attending to the investigation and repairs to prevent water ingress into the lot 38. Nor do I propose to declare that the body corporate has failed to comply with section 152 of the Act and section 170(2)(ii) and (iii) of Accommodation Module contributing to ongoing damage to Lot 38. It is evident that the Body Corporate expressed its preparedness to undertake necessary repairs including replacement of the waterproofing membrane and tiles. However, the actions of the applicant have prevented it from undertaking repair work.

[115] I do not propose to make 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".

[116] I am unable to make the requested order 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]). 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.

[117] 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. I note that the body corporate has agreed to such expenditure notwithstanding that the increase was largely occasioned by the applicant's failure to grant access to contractors.

[118] Minutes of the EGM on 23 April 2025 record the following:

Resolved that the body corporate accept the additional costs associated with the repairs to Lot 38 rooftop repairs previously approved, totalling $77,003.23 incl. GST with the costs included in the sinking fund budget.

Motion CARRIED. YES 9 NO 1 ABSTAIN 1 INVALID 0

[119] The next requested outcome is "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 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."

[120] I am unable to make such an order because the rooftop terrace of Lot 38 is not Exclusive Use Common Property, but rather, is part of the Mr Ehrlich's lot. However, it should be noted that under section 170 of the Accommodation Module, the body corporate must maintain roofing membranes in good condition if they provide protection for lots or common property, regardless of whether the membranes themselves part of the common property are. Maintenance of the waterproofing membrane remains the Body Corporate's responsibility even though it is part of lot 38.

[121] The body corporate has a specific statutory responsibility for the waterproof membrane, and structural elements. The body corporate is also liable under section 281 of the Act to repair consequential damage, but the area is otherwise Mr Ehrlich's to maintain and improve as he sees fit (subject to any relevant obligations in the by-laws).

[122] The applicant has failed to satisfy me that there are grounds for me to make 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.

[123] However, the body corporate does not dispute its responsibility for the membrane and the retiling. When the applicant reported problems with the new membrane, the body corporate's contractor responded that they would be addressed when he was permitted access to the lot to continue with the work authorised in June 2020. The committee maintained in its submission that it stood ready to carry on with the work when permitted access, and confirmed again in the wake of the Buildcheck report that it would remediate the membrane and retile when permitted access to the lot.

[124] 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.

[125] 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.

[126] I do not believe it is appropriate to make 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.

[127] 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. In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the body corporate to obtain quotes, choose a contractor and make payment - see the District Court appeal decision Golden Sands Highrise v Galtos & Anor [2000] QDC 416. If the works ultimately prove unsuccessful, as feared by the applicant, the Body Corporate will remain responsible for undertaking any further corrective action.

[128] I believe it is appropriate to make an order to the effect that the Body Corporate pay for and ensure the rooftop repair and drainage works all rooftop works comply with the National Construction Code. Obviously, remedial work undertaken by contractors should comply the National Construction Code which comprises the Building Code of Australia and the Plumbing Code of Australia, which call up numerous Australian Standards including AS 4654 and AS3500_._ Also, such work must be completed by persons holding the appropriate QBCC license.

[129] Finally, the body corporate does not dispute that where an applicant has suffered damage to property due to a contravention of the Act, section 281 of the Act empowers an adjudicator to order the responsible party to carry out repairs or pay reimbursement for repairs.

[130] Section 281 of the Act provides as follows:

281Order to repair damage or reimburse amount paid for carrying out repairs.

(1) If the adjudicator is satisfied that the applicant has suffered damage to property because of a contravention of this Act or the community management statement, the adjudicator may order the person who the adjudicator believes, on reasonable grounds, to be responsible for the contravention -

(a)to carry out stated repairs, or have stated repairs carried out, to the damaged property; or

(b)to pay the applicant an amount fixed by the adjudicator as reimbursement for repairs carried out to the property by the applicant.

A waterproofing membrane in the roof of a building in the scheme leaks and there is damage to wallpaper and carpets in a lot included in the scheme. The membrane is part of the common property and the leak results from a failure on the part of the body corporate to maintain it in good order and condition. The adjudicator could order the body corporate to have the damage repaired or to pay an appropriate amount as reimbursement for amounts incurred by the owner in repairing the property.

(a)for an order under subsection (1)(a) - the cost of carrying out the repairs is more than $75,000; or

(b)for an order made under subsection (1)(b) - the amount fixed by the adjudicator would be more than $10,000.

[131] Therefore, to avoid any ambiguity I will make an order that the body corporate is responsible for the following:

1. Replacement of water damaged gyprock and any other water damaged elements in the Applicants lot. This includes replacement of the water damaged Gyprock referred to in the Times Quote 879502 August 15, 2022. It may also include replacement of gyprock that has become water damaged since the quote was obtained, or water damaged gyprock that was not mentioned in that quote.
2. Removal of mould within the applicant's lot all areas of the lot that have been water damaged be inspected and certified free of any mould by appropriately qualified mould experts.
3. Replacement of any Electrical cabling that has been damaged by water ingress as recommended by a licensed electrician.
4. Replacement or repair of electronic items affected and damaged from water ingress from 2022 as recommended by a licensed technician.

[1] The application for interim orders was dismissed on 30th July 2025

[2] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

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

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

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

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

[10] Pacific Plumbing Report (Doc 51, 21 June 2024)

[11] SDX Engineering Reports (Docs 33, 42)

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

[13] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[15] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[16] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 167

[18] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[19] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[21] Paragon on Arthur [2024] QBCCMCmr 166

[22] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module

[23] Attachments F, G & H to submission

[28] See page 4 of SDx Report, Docs 47-50