COMMON PROPERTY - IMPROVEMENTS - where the body corporate resolved by ordinary resolution to carry out works to common property - whether the works are 'maintenance' or 'improvements' - whether the improvements form a single project or 'one case' - whether the motions must be passed by resolution without dissent.

1. I hereby order that Motions 3, 5 and 6 purportedly passed at the extraordinary general meeting for the Body Corporate for Park Avenue at South Bank on 6 May 2025 (May EGM), were at all times void.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application concerns significant proposed works to Park Avenue at South Bank, including to the pool area, gym and front entrance of the building. The works were considered and passed by ordinary resolutions at an extraordinary general meeting on 6 May 2025 (May EGM). The applicant challenges the validity of the resolutions, arguing that some of the works characterised as maintenance are in fact improvements, and given the cost of those improvements, could only have been passed by resolutions without dissent. The applicant also asserts that the improvements form a single project and should not have been broken down into separate motions for authorisation.
• [2] Initially, the body corporate asserted that the works are required to fulfil the body corporate's maintenance obligations. It said little to no major work has been done since the building's inception and that there are ongoing issues including water ingress into the basement. The body corporate said that all of the items proposed as maintenance are in need of repair or replacement, and that any replacement will simply involve a substitution with a modern equivalent.
• [3] However, the body corporate has since held a further extraordinary general meeting on 9 June 2025 (June EGM) at which it says it approved 'alternative works', that is, to only replace the podium slab waterproofing membrane including the associated tiling and landscaping. The body corporate says these are urgent maintenance works and that it will reconsider the other proposed works at a later date. The body corporate considers this approach addresses the complaints raised by the application and seeks dismissal of the application on the basis that the orders sought are no longer relevant or required.
• [4] The applicant says a determination of this application is necessary as the body corporate still intends to proceed with the works at a later date and may still rely on the disputed resolutions to raise levies and proceed with the improperly authorised improvements.
• [5] The main issues raised by this application are:
  1. whether the works proposed as maintenance at the May EGM are in fact improvements; and
  2. whether the improvements form a single project, the cost of which required authorisation by resolution without dissent.

• [6] Park Avenue at South Bank leasehold building units plan (SBP) 101696 (Park Avenue) is a 56- lot plan in South Brisbane. It forms part of the South Bank development which operates under the South Bank Corporation Act 1989 (SBC Act).
• [7] Schedule 4 of the SBC Act provides a 'Modified Building Units and Group Titles Act' which applies (with some amendments) provisions similar to the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (BUGT Act) to plans within Southbank. Part 5 of Schedule 4 provides for a referee to determine disputes including the general power to make orders.[1] Under that general power, on application by certain persons in connection with a parcel, a referee can make an order against certain persons to settle a dispute or rectify a complaint about the exercise or performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform, a power or function conferred or imposed by the SBC Act in connection with the parcel.
• [8] The applicant, a lessee at Park Avenue has brought this application against the body corporate for an alleged failure to comply with the SBC Act. I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine such a dispute between these parties.
• [9] The application was lodged on 1 May 2025 seeking interim and final orders. The final orders sought are:
  1. The Notice of Meeting for the Park Avenue EGM dated 22 April 2025 is invalid.
  2. Motion 3 - Engagement of Contractor for Maintenance works: the scope of works in Proposal Q0363, includes improvements to the property and therefore the motion is required to be passed without dissent and is therefore unlawful.
  3. Motion 4 - Engagement of Project Manager: the project management of the works is part of Proposal Q0363 relating to improvements to the property and is therefore required to be passed without dissent.
  4. Motion 5 - Engagement of Contractor for Improvements to Common Property: the amount for the improvement has been intentionally split in the proposal to fall below the prescribed amount. The works are part of the overall program of work. The motion is required to be passed without dissent.
  5. Motion 6 - Special sinking fund levy: As the levy relates to improvements on the property then this motion is required to be passed without dissent and is therefore unlawful.
• [10] On 6 May 2025, I made an interim order that pending determination of this application, the body corporate must not take any action to implement Motions 3, 4, 5 and 6 if passed at the May EGM.[2]
• [11] Aside from the body corporate, 15 individual lessees also made submissions. All 15 lessee submissions support the application. Their comments include:
  1. apart from the repair of the membrane in the pool area and garden beds, all other works presented to the May EGM should be classified as improvements which require a resolution without dissent;
  2. the difficulty in achieving a resolution without dissent should not be a reason to deliberately misclassify things and create confusion about what is essential and what is a preference of aesthetics. The essential maintenance works (repairing of membrane and associated tiling and landscaping) should be voted on separately and not bundled together with broader improvements;
  3. the common room wall replacement, relocation of the sauna to include a new toilet/shower area, upgrading of letterboxes, and changes to the building entry and signage are all improvements to enhance the aesthetics, functionality and value of Park Avenue;
  4. the proposed improvements would change the original character and architectural design of Park Avenue, which is recognised as a 'flagship' or 'iconic' building of the South Bank precinct;
  5. the relocation of the sauna to the pool deck and addition of a new bathroom area were put forward as an improvement but it is noted that costs were split across motions to keep them under the prescribed amount of $112,000;
  6. repairing the membrane will include retiling however owners should have the opportunity to vote on any tile colour change. The proposed white tiles are not consistent with the existing colour (terracotta) used throughout the external areas of the building.

• [12] At the outset, I wish to clarify the dispute to be resolved by the current application. The body corporate has sought dismissal of the application on the basis that it has now resolved to only replace the waterproofing membrane and the associated works of tiling and landscaping. The submissions indicate lessees are in agreement that such work is largely of a maintenance nature, and on the face of the submitted material, that would appear to be the case.
• [13] The question remains however whether the resolutions from the May EGM are valid. While the body corporate says it will not be proceeding with those motions in the form as passed, I note they have not been revoked and may still be implemented. Therefore, I consider there is still a dispute to be resolved and that the orders sought by the application are still relevant for determination. It should be noted that the scope of this decision relates only to the May EGM motions; it does not extend to determining the validity of any motions subsequently passed at the June EGM.

• [14] The body corporate is responsible for controlling, managing and administering the common property for the benefit of the lessees.[3] This includes maintaining the common property and keeping it in a state of good and serviceable repair including, where reasonably necessary, renewing or replacing the whole or part of the common property.[4]
• [15] The body corporate may make improvements to the common property where:[5]

(i) in any 1 case, the cost of the improvements does not exceed the prescribed amount; or

(ii) the body corporate resolves by resolution without dissent to do so; or

(iii) the body corporate resolves in general meeting that the improvements are considered to be essential for the health, safety or security of users of the common property and the referee makes an order approving the making of the improvements.

• [16] The prescribed amount for the cost of improvements to common property is the amount worked out by multiplying $2,000 by the number of lots subject of the plan.[6] With 56 lots in Park Avenue, the prescribed amount for improvements is $112,000. Any improvements to common property above this amount must be authorised by a resolution without dissent.
• [17] There are also statutory restrictions on how much the committee may spend. In any one case, the committee cannot authorise expenditure above the amount obtained by multiplying $200 by the number of lots under the plan.[7] The limit for committee spending for Park Avenue is thus $11,200. Any proposed expenditure above this amount must be submitted to an extraordinary general meeting, and if it relates to work to be performed or the purchase of personal property, the proposal must be accompanied by at least 2 tenders.

• [18] There are 4 motions subject of this dispute. I will consider each of them in turn.

Motion 3 Engagement of Contractor for Maintenance Works

THAT the Lessees resolve to authorise the Committee to engage Revolve Projects as Contractor pursuant to the attached Proposal Q0363 for maintenance works described as follows:

1 Rear section - from new rear glazing to gym area - $1,165,266.19 ex GST

2 Front Section - from new front glazing to front signage - $229,661.05 ex GST

3 BBQ Area - Sauna & Bathrooms - $100,230.43 ex GST

at a total quoted cost of $1,843,243.63 including GST (subject to any reasonable amendments or adjustments as approved by the Committee).

• [20] The motion was passed as an ordinary resolution with 28 votes in favour, 15 votes against and 1 abstention.

Are the works proposed under Motion 3 'maintenance' or 'improvements'?

• [21] I now come to the crux of this dispute. The applicant argues that whilst Motion 3 refers to the works as 'maintenance', the submitted proposal and plans indicate that at best it is a mixture of maintenance and improvements.
• [22] The term 'improvement' is not defined in the SBC Act. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCM Act), 'improvement' is defined to include a structural or non-structural change, including for example, the installation of air conditioning.
• [23] In its interim submission, the body corporate argued that the restrictive definition of improvements in the BCCM Act should not be applied. Unlike the BCCM Act, Schedule 4 of the SBC Act does not allow for improvements above the prescribed amount to be approved by special resolution, instead requiring a resolution without dissent. Given the difficulty in achieving a resolution without dissent in a building of this size, the body corporate suggests that a narrow meaning of maintenance could not have been intended.
• [24] Undoubtedly, a resolution without dissent is a high bar. But I do not agree that simply because it is difficult to achieve means that 'maintenance' must therefore be applied more broadly to include what would otherwise constitute an improvement.
• [25] The difference between 'maintenance' and 'improvement' has been considered at length in a number of cases. It is commonly accepted that replacing something that has become dilapidated or worn out, albeit with its modern equivalent will be considered maintenance.[8] However, additions or changes that go beyond what is necessary to maintain common property may amount to an improvement. To take the illustration of a fence replacement, if a body corporate replaced a dilapidated timber fence on common property with a new timber fence of the same or similar style, that would be considered maintenance. However, if the body corporate took the opportunity to upgrade the fence (for example to a metal fence), that kind of change may amount to an improvement.[9] Similarly, if something on common property is in good working order, but the body corporate wants to modernise it, that would not generally be considered maintenance. There would need to be some evidence to indicate that those aspects of common property were dilapidated and required repair or replacement.[10]
• [26] In some cases, adjudicators have held the view that works involving a degree of increased benefit to the scheme can still be characterised as maintenance. In Admiralty Towers II,[11] the body corporate resolved to upgrade the lifts in the building. Adjudicator Sutherland was not satisfied that the change of the lifts to a gearless system would substantially change the nature and use of the lifts or that it was "unduly directed to improving the value of the scheme".[12] The adjudicator noted that the body corporate is required to maintain the common property, which includes an obligation to take proactive steps to ensure common property does not fall into a state of disrepair or malfunction. In characterising the lift replacement as maintenance, Adjudicator Sutherland observed that "lift maintenance is not a trivial matter...A malfunctioning lift is at least a considerable inconvenience and may well be a serious safety issue, and accordingly the maintenance of lifts could (and arguably should) reasonably be more proactive than for other types of maintenance."[13] The adjudicator also noted that there was at least some indication that the lifts were beginning to malfunction with increasing regularity.
• [27] In the current matter, the body corporate sought to rely on the above conclusions from Admiralty Towers II, arguing that none of the items contemplated as 'maintenance works' are going to materially change the nature or use of the common property nor are they unduly directed at increasing the value of the common property (regardless of whether they actually have this effect). Rather, the body corporate says all of the items in its maintenance works program are in need of repair or replacement, and that the replacements will not create anything 'new' but instead will substitute existing things with their modern equivalent. However, despite its claims, the body corporate has not provided any arguments or evidence about why the various parts of common property are in need of repair or replacement.
• [28] The works proposed under Motion 3 are described as:
  1. Rear section - from new rear glazing to gym area
  2. Front section - from new front glazing to front signage
  3. Landscaping/waterproofing
• [29] Plans and descriptions of these proposed works are shown in the Revolve Projects Proposal Q0363 (Revolve Proposal). I note Motion 3 specifically excludes 'BBQ Area - Sauna & Bathrooms' from the costings. Based on the Revolve Proposal, and as supported by the explanatory note in the EGM notice, I understand the proposed works here include:
  1. removal and replacement of existing wall and tiles to the entry of the pool foyer area;
  2. refurbishment of the gym area including removal and replacement of walls, doors and flooring;
  3. changes to the entry of the building including replacement of the mailboxes, new entry signage, and replacement of the entry doors and surrounding tiles; and
  4. application of new waterproofing and landscaping.
• [30] In my interim decision, I noted that aside from the rectification of the waterproofing, it is unclear how any of the proposed works constitute 'maintenance' of common property.
• [31] I also note the following as recorded in the EGM minutes:

After 18 months of careful planning, extensive owner engagement and consultation, we are very pleased to present proposed works for Stage 1 of Planning the Future.

The works relate to the pool area, gym and front entrance, collectively "Stage 1", which is a clear priority of Owners and areas in need of attention. The objective of the Planning the Future is to take opportunity, when conducting required maintenance, to execute it in the framework of an overall vision for the future and incorporate elements that will enhance our home and living experience.

The works will address the waterproofing failures including the common garden areas. We will have a new entertaining area which is more weather resistant including built in seating and new equipment. Inbuilt seating for the pool surrounds will provide more bespoke areas for small groups to enjoy the pool and facilities. The addition of an all-access bathroom, sauna and outdoor shower near the pool will provide added amenity, allow the existing bathrooms to service the internal common area and free up space in the gym increasing its utility.

The gym will be refreshed, larger and modern. The front entrance will have added security and prominent signage befitting an A-Grade residence. Improved letter boxes and parcel delivery will add to the efficiency and security of the building. Selected materials are as previously presented to owners and are neutral in tone, selected by the design team to combine well with the existing colour scheme. Funds already raised in the special levy passed at the AGM for tiling around the pool, will be incorporated such that the additional special levy to fund Stage 1 is reduced.

• [32] The chairperson's address to owners indicates the level and nature of works proposed, which in my view clearly go beyond maintenance of those areas of the building. The stated intention is to enhance and modernise the common areas as part of the body corporate's overall plans for the future. There is no suggestion that any aspects of common property, aside from the waterproofing membrane, are dilapidated or in need of repair or replacement.
• [33] The applicant says the body corporate's proposal is to remove and improve a number of areas of common property that have not reached the end of their useful life or that require maintenance. The submissions support this contention. In relation to the common room wall replacement, the submissions say the existing wall is functional and in good condition, and that the proposed wall will be of a different design and position, requiring the unnecessary removal of the existing sandstone flooring. The tiles are said to be in good condition and not in need of replacement except for aesthetic reasons to align them with the overall vision and colour scheme. Similarly, in relation to the letterboxes and changes to the building entrance and signage, the submissions say that the existing ones are in good condition, that there is nothing requiring maintenance, and that all are improvements to enhance the aesthetics, functionality and value of Park Avenue.
• [34] I consider the body corporate's extensive refurbishment plans to the front and rear sections of the building are primarily aimed at modernising these areas of common property. Importantly, there is no evidence that any of the elements are in disrepair and in need of replacement. For these reasons, I am of the view that apart from the waterproofing and associated landscaping, the proposed works referred to in Motion 3 cannot be characterised as 'maintenance' but are improvements to common property. The cost of the proposed works to the front and rear sections of the property amount to $1,394,927.24, which is well in excess of Park Avenue's prescribed amount for improvements of $112,000. As such, the improvements could only have been authorised by a resolution without dissent. This it did not achieve. Accordingly, Motion 3 has not been validly passed.

Motion 4 Engagement of Project Manager for Maintenance Works

THAT the Lessees resolve to authorise the Committee to engage Woodsters as Project Manager pursuant to the attached Project Quote for maintenance works at a quoted cost of $150,419.27 including GST (subject to any reasonable amendments or adjustments as approved by the Committee).

• [36] The applicant submits that this motion makes no sense in isolation and that it should have been authorised on the same basis as Motion 3, that is by a resolution without dissent.
• [37] Motion 4 does not seek to authorise improvements to common property but to engage a project manager for the proposed works. There is no reason why such a motion requires a resolution without dissent.
• [38] However, as I have determined Motion 3 to be invalid, Motion 4 will cease to have any practical effect.

Motion 5 Engagement of Contractor for Improvements to Common Property

THAT the Lessees resolve to authorise the Committee to engage Revolve Projects as Contractor pursuant to the attached Proposal Q0363 for improvement works described as follows:

3 BBQ Area - Sauna & Bathrooms - $100,230.43 ex GST

1 Rear section - from new rear glazing to gym area - $1,165,266.19 ex GST

2 Front Section - From new front glazing to front signage - $229,661.05 ex GST

at a total quoted cost of $110,253.47 including GST (subject to any reasonable amendments or adjustments as approved by the Committee provided the cost remains less than the Prescribed Amount of $112,000).

• [40] The motion was passed as an ordinary resolution with 28 votes in favour, 15 votes against and 1 abstention.
• [41] Section 37(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act provides that a body corporate may make improvements to the common property where, in any 1 case, the cost of the improvements does not exceed the prescribed amount. The cost of $100,230.43 for improvements to the BBQ area is within Park Avenue's prescribed amount for improvements. Prima facie, the improvements may be authorised by the body corporate without a resolution without dissent.
• [42] However, the applicant says the proposed works to the BBQ area are clearly part of the overall refurbishment program which should be treated as one project. Taken together, the improvements would far exceed the prescribed amount of $112,000 and would require a resolution without dissent. The applicant argues that the body corporate cannot split the costs of the project to circumvent the prescribed spending limits.
• [43] The body corporate says that the contractors have confirmed that the works can proceed independently or concurrently, meaning they ought not be considered the same project for the purposes of determining the cost regardless of whether they are undertaken by the same contractors at the same time.
• [44] The question of what is considered 'one case' or a 'single project' was considered by the referee in The Galleria Apartments.[14] Under consideration in that matter was section 47(1) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act which similarly restricts the committee from, 'in any 1 case', undertaking expenditure exceeding the statutory limit. The committee there had carried out various improvements as part of a foyer upgrade, at a cost that was above the committee's spending limit. The referee considered that the foyer upgrade was 'one case' or 'one project', and that the committee did not have power to authorise spending on a water feature as this cost was part of the foyer upgrade and subject to the "in any 1 case rule".[15] The referee observed that this restriction stops the committee from dividing total expenditure on one project into smaller amounts that are within the statutory limit.
• [45] In Lumiere,[16] the adjudicator considered similar provisions under the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008 which prohibits a committee from authorising spending above the committee spending limit unless specifically authorised by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.[17] Further, if a series of proposals forms a single project, the cost of carrying out any one of the proposals is taken to be more than the spending limit if the cost of the project as a whole is more than the relevant limit.[18] In considering whether the 2 boom gate installations in that case formed one project, the adjudicator noted that there is no guidance in the legislation as to the factors that determine whether 2 proposals or associated improvements are part of one project. He stated:

[28]...there is no obvious basis in the words of the legislation for the notion that multiple proposals should necessarily be determined to be one project simply because they have the same or similar subject matter or are directed to the same end, are considered by a committee at the same time, or are undertaken at the same time.

[29] The only context provided by the legislation is the amount of the expenditure on the proposal or project and the nature of the authorisation required - that is, in the context of a decision on whether to spend money. Accordingly, it would seem logical to characterise two or more proposed expenditures as either separate or part of one project with that in mind.

• [46] In that case, the adjudicator considered the installation of the 2 boom gates could have proceeded independently of each other, and that the installation of the second gate was not necessitated or made likely by the installation of the first. On the evidence before him, the adjudicator could not be satisfied that the 2 boom gate installations were proposals that were part of the one project.
• [47] Similarly in the decision of Kensington Gate,[19] the adjudicator expressed the view that all the expenditure being broadly related to the same issue does not mean that the expenditure should be characterised as a single project. The applicant in that case asserted that the total expenditure on the 'underpinning project' had exceeded the committee spending limit. The adjudicator did not agree. Over the course of 5 years, the body corporate had expended some $75,000 on investigations and repairs related to addressing building movement and subsidence issues. The adjudicator did not consider there was a sufficient basis to characterise the sum of such expenditure as a 'single project'.
• [48] In contrast, in Palmerston Tower,[20] the body corporate entered into a contract for the replacement of fire detectors in the building at a cost of $120 per detector. The detectors were progressively installed throughout the building at the rate of 2 floors every 3 months. The committee argued that this expenditure was within its limit for committee spending. However, the adjudicator was of the view that the progressive replacement of smoke detectors was part of a single project, the cost of which was in the vicinity of $60,000 exceeding the committee's spending limit. As such, he considered an ordinary resolution was required to ratify the expenditure.
• [49] What the cases show is that whether or not multiple proposals for improvements are taken to form a single project, or 'one case', is heavily dependent on the particular facts of the case. In the matter before me, the body corporate has resolved to undertake a refurbishment project totalling $1,775,906.47(excluding GST). As per the Revolve Proposal, that amount is reflected in the following 'trade breakup':

1 Rear section - from new rear glazing to gym area - $ 1,165,266.19 ex GST

2 Front Section - From new front glazing to front signage - $229,661.05 ex GST

3 BBQ Area - Sauna & Bathrooms - $100,230.43 ex GST

• [50] Motion 5 relates only to the BBQ area. The explanatory note states that the works involve the construction of a new sauna and toilet block in the rear pool area adjacent to the existing outdoor kitchenette. Arguably, these works can be undertaken independently of the upgrade to the building entrance and gym areas. However, the difficulty in this case is the way in which the works as a whole have been presented. They are not independent proposals of expenditure to be separately considered within the body corporate's overall refurbishment plans. Rather, the proposed works collectively make up 'Stage 1' of the refurbishments and are intended to be approved and undertaken as one project. The fact that the works may be progressed independently in this instance is of little relevance. The works have been proposed to the body corporate as one project, forming part of the one tender, to be undertaken and managed by the one contractor at the one time. I acknowledge these factors will not always mean that the works relate to a single project, but in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that they do.
• [51] I have examined the Revolve Proposal and its elaborate programme of works. It would be artificial to split the costs relating to the BBQ area from the rest of the proposal when, for all intents and purposes, they form part of the same project, the costs of which have been calculated accordingly. Further, the way in which Motions 3 and 5 have been presented also suggest the 2 proposals are in fact a single project. The body corporate says it separated the works into 2 motions so they could be properly approved as 'maintenance' (Motion 3) and 'improvements' (Motion 5). However, as I have determined above, the works pursuant to Motion 3 are largely improvements, not maintenance. Had these works (front and rear sections) been properly considered together with the BBQ area, the cost of these improvements would have amounted to $1,495,157.67, well in excess of the body corporate's prescribed amount.
• [52] In this instance, I am satisfied that the proposed works to common property outlined under the Revolve Proposal all form 'one case'. As the cost of the improvements exceeds the prescribed amount, Motion 5 also required a resolution without dissent. This is not to say that all future plans to improve Park Avenue must be treated as 'one case'. Depending on the circumstances, the body corporate could consider improvements to different sections of the building incrementally, on a clear case by case basis where the body corporate is able to properly authorise the costs associated with each proposal. Provided that in each case, the expenditure is within the prescribed amount, a resolution without dissent may not be required.

THAT the body corporate approves an additional Special Sinking Fund Levy in the amount of $1,386,418.00

(including GST) for the purposes of Maintenance Works and that the contributions are hereby determined at a rate of $187.00 (including GST) per lot entitlement to be issued by instalments as follows:

Please note: the 1st levy period 01/08/2025, is in addition to the previously approved special levy of $33.00

Levy Period Amount Per Lot Entitlement Due Date

• [54] The legislation provides that the body corporate may, from time to time, determine the amounts which are reasonable and necessary to be raised by contributions for the purposes of meeting its liabilities, including for the making of improvements to, and the maintenance of, common property.[21] As Motions 3 and 5 are invalid, there is no improvement or maintenance liability requiring contributions to be raised. Accordingly, I will also invalidate the resolution passed on Motion 6.

• [55] The application also sought to invalidate the notice of meeting however I see no basis for such an order. The relevant motions that were unlawful have been invalidated for the reasons above.
• [56] Finally, I note the applicant also sought clarification as to whether a change in tile colour constitutes an improvement to common property. I did not have to decide this issue in the present application nor was it clear on the facts before me what the answer would have been. The parties may wish to carefully consider my general discussion about the nature of maintenance and improvements to common property, and the limitations imposed by the legislation, to guide their decisions regarding future works at Park Avenue.

[1] Section 77(1) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act

[2] On 14 July 2025, at the applicant's request, I extended this interim order for 3 months so that it has effect until 6 November 2025.

[3] Section 37(1)(a) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act

[4] Section 37(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act

[5] Section 37(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act

[6] See section 9 of the Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008

[7] See section 47 of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act and section 12 of the Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008

[8] Morcom and Ors v Campbell-Johnson and Ors [1955] 3 All ER 264

[9] Per Adjudicator Rosemann in Carmel By The Sea [2020] QBCCMCmr 559 at [33]

[10] See for example, Loganholme Industrial Centre [2025] QBCCMCmr 173

[11] [2019] QBCCMCmr 545

[14] [2012] QBCCMCmr 274

[16] [2019] QBCCMCmr 73 at [28]- [29]

[17] See section 162 of the Accommodation Module (formerly section 149)

[18] See section 162(2) of the Accommodation Module (formerly section 149(2))

[19] [2021] QBCCMCmr 458

[20] [2018] QBCCMCmr 294

[21] Section 38A(2) of Schedule 4 of the SBC Act