Park Square [2025] QBCCMCmr 154 (12 May 2025)

BY-LAWS - whether orders should be made concerning enforcement of parking by-laws; EXPENDITURE - whether body corporate has spent funds on works (including on drainage, fencing, and gardening) that are the responsibility of owners and should be required to seek reimbursement; COSTS - whether adjudicator should make an order that the applicant be reimbursed for her costs of making applications and/or whether a costs order should be made against the applicant.

Act, ss 86, 94(2),100(5); 205; 270(1)(c)

1. Within 30 days of this order, I declare that the applicant may provide to the body corporate via email:

a) 3 new separate forms (the approved Form 1s) alleging contraventions of specific parking by-laws by the occupiers of Lots 6, 12 and 16,

b) for each Form 1, up to 4 photos as supporting evidence (no more than 12 photos in total via email), and

c) other supporting evidence of the alleged contraventions, for example, a description identifying the occupier(s) and details of the vehicle(s), the date(s), and for what period, which supporting evidence is to be no more than 1 page per Form 1.

1. Within 30 days of receiving the above email(s) from the applicant, the Committee for the Body Corporate for Park Square CTS 30675 must reconsider whether it has a reasonable belief that the occupiers of Lots 6, 12 and 16 are contravening the scheme's parking by-laws and whether such contraventions are likely to continue.
2. Pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act, I hereby dismiss as frivolous, misconceived, and/or without substance those parts of the application relating to outcomes 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12.

1. The remainder of the application is dismissed.

• [1] There is a history of disputes between the parties to this application.[1]
• [2] In this application, the applicant is seeking 14 separate orders relating to a variety of disputes she has with the body corporate. Of the requested outcomes sought, I have concluded that several are disputes about minor issues, are not supported by evidence, or demonstrate a misconception of the law or the facts. However, in amongst those misconceived or unsupported claims there are some disputes that present what I consider to be genuine issues to be determined.
• [3] For the reasons that follow, I have made orders with respect to one of the outcomes sought and dismissed the remainder of the application.

• [4] Park Square community titles scheme 30675 (Park Square) is located in Hawthorne and is comprised of 16 lots in 7, two-storey buildings, and common property. The scheme was registered as a building format plan of subdivision. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies.
• [5] The applicant is the owner of Lot 16.
• [6] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Park Square.
• [7] The applicant has made several unsuccessful applications seeking orders against the body corporate. The applicant appealed one adjudicator's decision, with the appeal tribunal recently affirming the decision.[2]
• [8] The body corporate has also made a prior application to this office for an adjudicator's order. In response to that application, an adjudicator decided on the evidence presented that the applicant's communications amounted to a nuisance in breach of one of the scheme's by-laws. The adjudicator made orders that, except for genuine emergencies or if otherwise invited by the body corporate, the applicant "may only" communicate with the body corporate in writing, in a courteous manner, and sent by postal mail (Communications Order).[3] In addition, the adjudicator ordered that where the applicant did not comply with the Communications Order, the body corporate "may" disregard communications from the applicant.[4]
• [9] For the present application, the parties initially participated in conciliation but were unable to completely resolve the dispute. When the applicant made this application for final orders, the Commissioner invited the respondent and all owners (excluding the applicant) to make a submission on the application. The committee made a submission on behalf of the respondent and the applicant provided a reply. The Commissioner made a dispute resolution recommendation to refer the application to department adjudication.
• [10] After the application was referred to adjudication, without being invited to do so, the applicant sent numerous further emails to the BCCM Office. Relevant to this application were updates about the motorised gate and alleged contraventions of the parking by-laws for the scheme.[5]
• [11] I investigated the dispute, including by reviewing the application, the submissions, the reply, the survey plan, and the CMS. I also sought further information from the body corporate relating to three of the outcomes sought (Outcomes 6, 13 and 14). In addition, I reviewed the prior decisions and orders relating to disputes between the same parties.

• [12] An adjudicator has jurisdiction and power to make a range of orders to resolve disputes about the exercise of rights or powers, performance of duties under, or a claimed contravention of, the Act or the CMS.[6] This dispute includes multiple allegations that the body corporate has contravened the Act and CMS. I am satisfied this dispute falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act.[7]

• [13] For this application, the applicant is seeking 14 separate outcomes. She makes specific claims, provides arguments, and supplies varying degrees of evidence for each. I will address each of the outcomes separately in the analysis section below.
• [14] The application also includes a series of general claims about the committee and some of the consultants and contractors employed by the body corporate. Where the parties are aware of these allegations and the broader history of the disputes at the scheme, I do not think it is necessary or helpful to summarise those here. To the extent any of the applicant's general allegations are relevant to a specific outcome sought, I have considered them.

• [15] In opposing the application, the body corporate through its lawyers, makes certain general assertions that may have some relevance to the specific outcomes sought. The body corporate asserts that the applicant:
  1. has been harassing the committee over the details of its management and administration of the scheme, no matter how minor or inconsequential
  2. is not complying with the orders about communication made by the adjudicator in Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 158
  3. cannot show she has engaged in the required self-resolution because her emails may be disregarded as they breach the communication order
  4. misunderstands the administration of the scheme and makes allegations that are vexatious allegations of minor or inconsequential effect rather than non-compliance
  5. has misconceived the legal basis for the orders sought, and
  6. includes bald allegations of a breach by the committee of the code of conduct with no particulars about which provision of the code is at issue nor how it was breached.
• [16] The body corporate separately opposes and makes arguments against each of the specific outcomes sought. Those will be discussed and considered in the analysis section below. The body corporate also seeks a costs order against the applicant.

• [17] In reply, the applicant says the body corporate's submission should be entirely disregarded[8] because the engagement of lawyers to prepare the submission required more than committee approval, and there was no invoice from the lawyers for the services. Her responses to the specific arguments made by the body corporate are incorporated in the analysis below.

• [18] As noted above, the applicant seeks 14 different outcomes. I will consider each separately before considering the respondent's application for costs.

• [19] The first outcome sought relates to enforcement of the scheme's parking by-laws. Accordingly, to provide some context, I will first review some of the general principles applicable to by-law enforcement.

• [20] The body corporate's functions include administering the common property and enforcing the by-laws.[9]
• [21] If an owner or occupier (a complainant) reasonably believes another owner or occupier has breached a by-law and the circumstances make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated, the complainant can notify the body corporate. The complainant must use the approved form (BCCM Form 1) to do so.[10]
  • [22] A body corporate in receipt of a Form 1 notice from a complainant is not automatically obligated to issue a by-law contravention notice. Rather, the body corporate must:
    1. consider the by-law at issue and whether it reasonably believes the person named (accused person) by the complainant is contravening that by-law,[11] if it forms such a belief then,
    2. consider whether the circumstances of the contravention make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated,[12] and if so, then
    3. consider whether it is necessary to require the accused person to cease, remedy, or not repeat the contravention,[13] and if it decides it is necessary, then
    4. issue a contravention notice that complies with the requirements of the Act,[14] and also
    5. advise the complainant within the required time frame that it has issued a contravention notice.[15]
  • [23] The body corporate and its committee each have a statutory obligation to act reasonably in making decisions and to make legally reasonable decisions.[16] The obligation applies to the decision-making by a committee at each of the above stages.
  • [24] The duty to act reasonably means the committee must consider relevant factors that have a bearing on the issue and must ignore irrelevant factors.[17] The specific factors to be considered will vary depending on the circumstances. When a decision is challenged, the adjudicator first evaluates whether the decision maker ignored or failed to genuinely consider any relevant factors and whether it acted on irrelevant factors.[18]
  • [25] Where a body corporate decides not to give a contravention notice to the accused person, the complainant may file an application for resolution of their dispute about the purported by-law breach.[19] A complainant can choose to make an application naming the accused person as the respondent to the application.[20]

• [26] The applicant says that, as a resident owner, she has the right to use the visitors' parking bay for genuine visitors. She explains her lot is in a corner of the scheme and she often has contractors who require extra room to work.
  • [27] The applicant say she has sent the body corporate multiple photos of the cars parked in breach of By-law 29, with the latest photos sent in October 2024. She says in her application or in the accompanying materials that:

(i) they have 2 cars and a truck and take turns in parking one or more of those vehicles in the visitor bays and also park in the restricted bay for several days which blocked access to the electrical switchboard > > (ii) she sent photos and in February 2024 issued a Form 1 notice to the body corporate asking it to take action about the breaches > > (iii) she provided a copy of the Form 1 to the occupiers of the lot by placing it in their letterbox, but it was ripped into small pieces and put in her letterbox, and she was confronted at her front door by one of the female occupiers, and > > (iv) she has been subject to retaliation from persons associated with Lot 6

(i) they have 3 cars and take turns in parking in the visitor's bay outside her lot > > (ii) she has sent photos and in September 2023 sent a Form 1 notice to the body corporate which described that the owners had parked in the visitor bays for 26 days and overnights (detailing the dates) to the body corporate asking it to take action about the breaches, and > > (iii) she provided a copy of the Form 1 to the owner of Lot 12, but it was returned, and he retaliated by moving her council waste and recycling bins far away from her lot.

(i) they have 2 cars and take turns in parking in the visitor bays > > (ii) she has sent photos and, in February 2024, issued a Form 1 notice to the body corporate asking it to take action, and > > (iii) provided a copy to the occupiers of the lot.

• [28] The applicant also says the committee agreed in conciliation it would consider the contravention notices and provide her with a response but, in breach of that agreement, it did not do so.
  • [29] The applicant seeks an order:

... (or enforce the Body Corp) to U6 tenants, U12 owners and U14 tenants for a constant breach of parking bylaw since February 2023. Last time 22 October the 3 of them.

• [30] In response, the committee acknowledges it did receive the three Form 1s from the applicant. It did not say whether those were received via post, via email, or both. However, it contends the applicant's Form 1s were not accompanied by any supporting evidence of the alleged contraventions.
• [31] The committee says it considered the Form 1s and, "acting reasonably", it decided not to issue by-law contravention notices to the occupiers of Lots 6, 12 or 14. It says further that its "reasonable belief remains that no contravention of the identified by-laws has occurred" and, as a result, it is not appropriate to issue a by-law contravention notice.
• [32] The committee says the applicant has not asserted the committee failed to act reasonably in making its decision in July 2024 not to issue contravention notices. It says the application cannot now be amended to seek that relief and, even if it was possible to amend, the application would fail. The committee also says it is not reasonably open for an adjudicator to find that contraventions have occurred "where the Applicant continues to not provide any supporting evidence, despite the passing of many months, to substantiate the allegations."
• [33] In her reply, the applicant says all of the Form 1s were accompanied by photos and she has sent numerous emails about the by-law breaches attaching photos. She also provides the number plates and describes the colour of each of the vehicles at issue. The applicant says an occupier of Lot 12 parked in the visitor bay in breach of the by-laws which meant her visitor (a contractor) could not use the parking bay. She says an occupier of Lot 6 stated she is entitled to use the visitor parking bays because she pays rent and those bays are not being used.
• [34] The applicant says the only action taken by the body corporate to enforce the scheme's parking by-laws is that the secretary distributed a general letter for occupiers not to breach the parking by-laws. She notes that the owners of 2 other lots parking in breach of the by-laws stopped when she issued a Form 1 or contacted the BCM. Finally, the applicant says it is dangerous for her to issue Form 1s to occupiers as they retaliate against her.

• [35] The order sought by the applicant is that the adjudicator issue an order "(or enforce the Body Corp) to U6 tenants, U12 owners and U14 tenants for a constant breach of parking bylaw since February 2023 ...."
• [36] The order clearly seeks an order against certain identified occupiers relating to purported breaches of the parking by-laws. Where the applicant has not named those occupiers as respondents to the application, I do not have jurisdiction or power to make orders directly against those persons. Nor would it be just and equitable to do so where those occupiers have not been given notice of the application or the opportunity to respond to potential orders against them.
• [37] My inquiry, however, does not end there. In the first part of the outcome requested, the applicant asks that an adjudicator make an order to "enforce the Body Corp." Although imperfectly worded, in my view, that can only mean she is asking alternatively for an order that the body corporate take further action to enforce its parking by-laws.
• [38] To make such an order, I would need to be first satisfied that the committee failed to act reasonably when it decided in July 2024 not to issue contravention notices. However, the committee suggests the applicant has not asserted the committee failed to act reasonably in making its July 2024 decision. It contends that the application cannot now be amended to seek that relief and, even if it was possible to amend, it would be doomed to fail.
• [39] I do not agree with all of the committee's arguments. When investigating an application, I must observe natural justice.[21] Where an applicant is unrepresented, as is the case here, the applicant may not completely understand the applicable law. As a result, the application may not expressly articulate the legal basis for a claim and/or the applicant may not expressly connect their recitation of the facts to a particular provision of the legislation. I consider my obligation to observe natural justice means that I may make inferences that are fairly drawn from the application. As will be more apparent from the discussion below, in my view, it can be fairly inferred from the applicant's assertions of fact that she believes and is claiming that the committee is not acting reasonably in making decisions about her Form 1s and by-law enforcement.
• [40] Of course, my obligation to observe natural justice extends to both parties. In this regard, I am satisfied in this case that the respondent body corporate (which is legally represented) did consider the legal issue of whether the committee acted reasonably in making decisions. Critically for purposes of natural justice, I am satisfied its submission did address and make arguments concerning the reasonableness of its decision making about the Form 1s.[22]
• [41] Accordingly, I will proceed to consider whether the applicant has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that, in the context of the scheme and the circumstances, the body corporate did not act reasonably in making decisions about her Form 1 notices.
• [42] I am satisfied from my review of the materials and my investigations that the following are the context and circumstances for the committee's decision:
  1. The applicant has a history of repeatedly sending long, voluminous and accusatory correspondence to the body corporate, including serious allegations about mis- or mal-administration of the body corporate.
  2. An adjudicator made the Communication Orders, including an order that the applicant must send non-urgent correspondence by mail and an order that the body corporate may disregard correspondence that does not comply with the Communication Orders.
  3. The scheme is relatively small, with only 16 lots and limited on-site parking for owners and occupiers.
  4. In late 2023 and in 2024, the applicant sent at least three Form 1s about breaches of the parking by-laws:
     1. the Form 1s allege breaches of By-laws 28 and/or 29
     2. the persons allegedly breaching the by-laws were identified on the Form 1s as either owners or tenants of specified lots
     3. on some of the Form 1 notices, car numberplates were provided and details of dates of purported by-law breaches were included, and
     4. at least two of the forms referenced an attached photo and the applicant says photos were attached, but the respondent denies receiving any photos.
  5. The applicant originally sent the Form 1s to the body corporate via email, which I understand it may have disregarded, but in or around July 2024, the body corporate accepted, considered, and made decisions about the Form 1s.
  6. The parties dispute whether the Form 1s were accompanied by, or supported by, photos or other evidence of by-law contraventions.
  7. This is the third time the applicant has applied for adjudicator's orders relating to contravention of the schemes parking by-laws.[23]
  8. In October 2024 the applicant says she emailed photos of parking by-law breaches to the body corporate.
  9. In November 2024, the body corporate sent a circular to all owners and occupiers including a reminder that parking was not permitted on common property except for visitor parking spaces, which were only to be used by bona fide visitors for a short term.
• [43] I accept, as more likely true than not, the applicant's statements that the occupiers of the three lots possess multiple vehicles. I also accept that the applicant has issued notes, Form 1s or emails directly to occupiers she believes are not parking in accordance with the by-laws and that the communications have not been well received by those owners and occupiers.
• [44] As outlined above, the first step for a committee in receipt of a Form 1 is to consider the by-law at issue and whether it reasonably believes the person named (the accused person) is contravening that by-law.
• [45] Here, the parking by-laws referenced in the Form 1s are By-laws 28 and 29. The first provides that "Members must observe the terms of any notice displayed by the Body Corporate ..."[24] By-law 29 provides in relevant part that:

29.1 Restriction. A proprietor or occupier of a lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval:

(a) park or stand any motor or other vehicle upon common property

(b) permit an invitee to park a vehicle or allow a vehicle to stand on common property, except for the designated visitor parking area which must remain available at all times for the use of visitors vehicles

(c) visitor parking shall be for short term, where short term is considered for a few hours;

(d) that if visitors to owners and occupiers need to park longer than a few hours the owner and occupier on their behalf should forward a request for approval to [...] outlining the specific reason for parking longer, the expected period for which the visitor park will be used, the type, model and registration of the vehicle to be parked, the lot number to be served and a contact phone number or email address; and

(e) display the returned approval in plain sight on the dash or seen location within the vehicle.

• [46] The committee suggests it did not have a basis on which to form a reasonable belief that that the above by-laws were being contravened by the accused occupiers because the applicant's Form 1s "were not accompanied with any supporting evidence of the alleged contravention of the identified by-laws." Without the requisite reasonable belief, it says it was not appropriate for the committee to issue by-law contravention notices.
• [47] In response, the applicant contends that she did provide evidence of the contraventions, including by providing photos via email on several occasions.
• [48] Adjudicators generally take the view that, on receipt of a Form 1, a committee may decide to investigate, but it is not automatically obligated to do so. In other words, it may be reasonable in some circumstances for a committee to decide that a Form 1 and its accompanying evidence (or lack thereof) combined with its own knowledge, does not provide a sufficient basis for it to form a reasonable belief there has been a by-law contravention that is likely to be repeated. Without such a belief, the body corporate need not take any further action.
• [49] However, in making decisions - including when it is forming a belief about alleged by-law contraventions and whether to investigate further - a committee is obligated to consider factors that are relevant in the specific circumstances. In this particular case, I am satisfied in making decisions about whether it held a reasonable belief about by-law contraventions, and deciding not to investigate further, the committee failed to consider several relevant factors.
• [50] Firstly, the evidence provided by the complainant is obviously a relevant factor for the committee to consider. In this regard, I do not agree that the Form 1s were devoid of supporting evidence. In my view, the Form 1s described circumstantial evidence of alleged by-law contraventions, including by identifying the occupiers, the vehicles (by model/description or by number plate), specific dates of alleged contraventions, and parking exceeding short term/2 hours (whole day and overnight), and 2 of the forms expressly referenced attached pictures, putting the committee on notice there was additional evidence.
• [51] Secondly, how and in what form the complainant could provide additional supporting evidence - especially photos - is a relevant factor in this particular case. Due to the Communication Orders, there are somewhat unusual circumstances surrounding the way in which the applicant was permitted to send supporting evidence of alleged by-law contraventions to the committee.
• [52] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant did send photos of the alleged contraventions via email to the committee. In my view, the practical constraints (or increased burden) on the applicant's ability to support genuine claims of by-law contraventions was a relevant factor to be considered by the committee when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to disregard or accept emailed photos as supporting evidence.
• [53] Thirdly, even though a committee may not be automatically obligated to investigate the allegations contained in a Form 1, when deciding whether it reasonably believes there has been a contravention of the parking by-laws, it is my view that the committee did need to consider what it already knew about the particular scheme. In this case, it knows there is limited parking for occupiers on scheme land and it knows (or should know)[25] that occupiers of lots own more than one vehicle. I consider these are relevant factors the committee should have considered in combination with the above two factors. In deciding not to investigate further and by forming the view it did not have a reasonable belief that there had been contraventions of the by-laws, I infer on the balance of probabilities that it did not adequately consider its own knowledge of the scheme.
• [54] Notwithstanding the applicant's history and continued voluminous complaints and assertions, the committee remains obligated to act reasonably in considering those of her complaints that amount to more than mere technical breaches, are not about insubstantial matters, and may genuinely have some merit. In this regard, the applicant has satisfied me that the committee failed to consider the above relevant factors and therefore acted unreasonably when it made its July 2024 decision.[26]

• [55] I must now consider whether it is just and equitable to make the orders sought.
• [56] I agree with the body corporate that it would be inappropriate on the evidence presented to make a finding that the parking by-laws have in fact been contravened by particular occupiers and/or that such contraventions are likely to continue. I consider such a finding would be premature where the committee has not properly considered the issue. Further, even if it decides to take further action to formally enforce the by-laws, the legislation requires the body corporate to first issue contravention notices. This is to ensure the respective occupiers allegedly contravening the by-laws are put on notice and given an opportunity to cure or cease any contraventions.
• [57] I do consider, however, that it is just and equitable to require the committee to reconsider its decision about whether it holds a reasonable belief that contraventions have occurred and are likely to continue. I have made an order to that effect.
• [58] In light of the Communications Order, I will expressly permit the applicant to provide via email no more than 12 photos of alleged contraventions along with a brief description identifying the occupier she alleges parked the vehicle shown in the photo, on what date, and for what period.
• [59] The applicant should be aware that my orders do not necessarily mean the committee is obligated to take further action. Even if the committee forms a reasonable belief that there have been contraventions, and that they are likely to continue or be repeated, the committee will have a series of subsequent decisions to make about whether and what action to take. Although it may decide to issue one or more contravention notices, it is not obligated by this order to do so.

• [60] Body corporate "records" are defined in the Act to include "the rolls, registers and other documents kept by the body corporate under this Act (including under the regulation module applying to the scheme)."[27]
• [61] An interested person may access the records by inspection or by obtaining a copy of the records, or both.[28] However, a body corporate is only required to give access to body corporate records it holds at the time of a request.[29]
• [62] The applicant believes body corporate funds were used by the owner of Lot 1 to purchase 15 plants which she claims were installed in the garden outside his lot without body corporate approval. She wants an order that the body corporate provide her with the plant invoice.
• [63] In response, the body corporate says it has previously advised the applicant that the body corporate did not install or pay for the plants. As such, it says there is no invoice for the plants in the body corporate records and, as it has advised the applicant, it cannot provide one.
• [64] In her reply, the applicant appears to insist that someone in the body corporate must be responsible for the works and for the payments made. She says she has the right to know where body corporate monies have been spent.

• [65] In this case, I consider the applicant's reasoning about the existence of records to be flawed. Simply because there was planting on common property does not automatically mean the body corporate must have been the one to pay for the plants. I accept the body corporate's representations that it did not pay for the plants.
• [66] It is logical to assume that whoever paid for the plants, has the invoice/ receipt. Where I have accepted the paying party was not the body corporate, it follows that I also accept such documents would not be in its possession. I thus decline to make the order sought.
• [67] Where the applicant has been previously advised the body corporate has no such records, I dismiss this part of the application as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, and without substance.

• [68] The body corporate held an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in October 2023 to consider, among other things, a group of same issue motions regarding fencing works (Fencing Works) at the scheme. The supporting documentation for those motions included a diagram of which fences were to be replaced, cost sharing arrangements that had been agreed upon for the fences that were jointly owned, and 2 quotes from contractors, which described the different works that were proposed for different fences, and the fencing materials involved.
• [69] The applicant says the owners of 3 lots - who are also committee members - completely replaced their own fences and dividing fences, with the body corporate contributing half of the cost of the works. She says the fences did not need a full replacement and suggests repairs by way of replacing only some palings would have been sufficient.
• [70] The applicant claims another motion about fences, this time considered and approved by the committee in January 2024, is unlawful and that 3 committee members have breached the committee code of conduct. She does not clearly explain why she believes the motion is unlawful nor how she claims the code was breached. However, she wants the body corporate to require the committee to provide her with quotes about colours, to explain who will pay for the works, and which particular fences and fencing materials are being referred to.
• [71] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp to provide (or the body corp to enforce the committee) the three quotes obtained for the change of fence colour.

• [72] In response, the body corporate says the committee considered motions about paint colours, but it did not consider quotes. Therefore, it cannot provide the documents the applicant seeks.

• [73] The minutes from the 2023 EGM show that the body corporate resolved to approve one of the quotes (of more than $70,000) for the Fencing Works. However, I am satisfied that no colours for the new or repaired fences were specified in the EGM motions or the supporting materials.
  • [74] The submitted materials show that in January 2024 the committee subsequently considered motions about the colour selections for the aluminium fences and painting to the rendered areas. I am satisfied that the committee was not at that time considering new or additional quotes for the Fencing Works because the body corporate had already approved the quotes (including for the installation of aluminium fencing and painting of rendered brick/retaining walls) at the earlier EGM.
  • [75] Where the committee only made decisions about colours for fencing works, and there is no suggestion one colour was somehow more expensive than another, as a matter of logic, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are no new or additional quotes relating to fencing colours. A body corporate cannot produce a document that never existed. I thus decline to make the order sought and I dismiss this part of the application as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and without substance.

• [76] The applicant says there were works carried out to the roof at the scheme in December 2023, which she says cost $5,428.50. She says there were no motions submitted at committee meetings or at general meetings of the body corporate for these works. She understands the body corporate and/or the BCM have some sort of arrangement with the contractor whereby recommended works proceed automatically without the body corporate considering if such works are necessary.
• [77] The applicant says she has the right to know the scope of approved works, whether those were the only works undertaken, and if not, why. Where body corporate funds have been expended, she does not accept that there are no work orders and no approvals. She seeks an order that:

... the body corp (or to enforce the committee) to advise the scope of works for the roofing works completed on 12 December 2023

• [78] In response, the body corporate says it has provided the applicant with the invoice for the roofing works and it has no other records relating to the works.
• [79] In her reply, I understand the applicant to be claiming that it is unreasonable for the body corporate to have a standing agreement that a contractor can carry out works without specific approval.

• [80] In reviewing the submitted materials, I am satisfied that an undated quote (number 22965) from the contractor describes the scope of works identified as necessary during the annual gutter clean. The specific works quoted were for the removal and replacement of 7 metres of rusting fascia guttering at a cost of $5,428.50. The quote was valid until 20 December 2023. The quote also included recommendations for other works (not quoted). It is apparent the quoted works were carried out. The contractor's invoice (number 35864) dated 13 December 2023, is for the same amount as the quote ($5,428.50) and was payable within 14 days.[30]
• [81] The applicant does not suggest the guttering works were outside the body corporate's duty to maintain the common property. Rather, she appears to take issue with if and how the guttering works were approved. Specifically, she perceives there exists an arrangement whereby the contractor self-determines what works are necessary, proceeds without body corporate approval, and then invoices for the works.
• [82] In terms of the outcome sought, the applicant is only seeking records and information about the scope of the works undertaken. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the body corporate has provided the applicant with all the body corporate records it has and that those records are sufficient to identify the scope of the works undertaken.
• [83] In these circumstances, where the applicant has the requested information and I accept that the body corporate has no further records, I decline to make the order sought and I dismiss this part of the application as frivolous, misconceived and without substance.
• [84] Regarding the applicant's suggestions the works were not pre-approved, she does not seek any orders about the approval process or what she perceives to be a lack of approval. As such, those allegations are beyond the scope of this order.[31]

• [85] It is apparent that the applicant was at all times opposed to the scope of the Fencing Works discussed above in the context of Outcome 3.[32] In her view, with limited exceptions the fences at the scheme were generally in good condition and the exceptions were insufficient to warrant the major works approved by the body corporate.
• [86] In the applicant's view, the quotes presented at the October 2023 EGM did not include replacement of the perimeter timber fences. She says she contacted the contractor to find out more information on the scope of the proposed works. The applicant also questioned the body corporate how the works to perimeter fences would be done and how the contractor would charge to remove "obstacles" that had been installed by owners. In November 2023, the body corporate advised her it would take action if she contacted the fencing contractor or obstructed the fencing works. In December 2023, the body corporate advised all owners of dates and times when the fencing contractors would be attending for the works. It asked occupiers to remove all obstructions against or near the fence to provide clear access for the works.
• [87] The materials show the applicant had her own contractor inspect the condition of the boundary fence adjacent to her lot. She says his view was that one fence was fine and only needed a few screws, with the other fence to be inspected after her shade cloth was removed. The applicant provides invoices to demonstrate how much she paid her contractor to remove and replace the shade cloth and screen, which she says she was forced to do because of the intimidating letters from the body corporate.[33]
• [88] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate:

... reimburse my two invoices for works carried out on my fences due to a body corp Fiasco Fence Job that ended worst than I predicted. One invoice dated 16 April 2024 for $ 371.35 and the other one dated 19 June 2024 for $ 595.80.

• [89] In response, the body corporate says it advised the applicant that owners are responsible for maintaining their exclusive use courtyards and any improvements installed therein. It took the position this means owners are responsible for removing, relocating, and/or replacing any items installed by them on common property. In its submission it says that there is no record of approval for the applicant's improvements to common property. It says it cannot be liable for costs relating to an unauthorised improvement to common property.
• [90] In her reply, the applicant does not address the issue of whether her improvements - the shade cloth and screen installed on the fence in the exclusive use area - were authorised by the body corporate. She claims further that the fence works were delayed because the contractor spent over a month in other owners' yards and then abandoned the works.
• [91] Finally, she asserts she should be compensated for the body corporate's mistakes that put pressure on owners' funds and cost her extra.

• [92] Where an exclusive use by-law attaches to a lot but is silent on whether the lot owner is authorised to make improvements to the allocated area of common property, the lot owner may make improvements only if authorised by the body corporate.[34]
• [93] In this case, I have reviewed the applicable exclusive use by-law (By-law 30) and it does not authorise the making of improvements in exclusive use areas. As a result, I am satisfied an owner must obtain body corporate authorisation before making an improvement to the exclusive use area of common property.
• [94] The applicant has not demonstrated the improvements were authorised by the body corporate.[35] In such circumstances, she has not established a basis on which she would be entitled to reimbursement for the removal and re-installing of those non-authorised improvements. Accordingly, I decline to make the order sought.
• [95] I note that I am not dismissing this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act because I do not consider this request to be frivolous or misconceived. In some circumstances (albeit not in this case), a body corporate may be responsible for removing and reinstalling improvements when it is undertaking maintenance.

• [96] The applicant says 4 owners have had works done in their lots over the past few years (dating back to 2017), including most recently in February 2024. She says no motions were submitted or approved for the works, which involved drainage works relating to Lots 1 and 2, the owners of which are committee members. The applicant claims it is her right to know where levy monies are spent. She understands some of the drainage works to the courtyards of Lots 1 and 2 caused problems with the fencing works.
• [97] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate:

... provide (or the body corp to enforce U1 and U2 committee members) an explanation on why Clarke and Matthews needed a new plumbing job without permission from the body corp or at least an OCM. Furthermore the body corp to enforce U1 and U2 to reimburse the money if it was NOT a clear body corp issue.

• [98] In response, the body corporate says the allegations and orders sought relate to various unidentified works to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 6 since 2017. It says it cannot respond meaningfully where the applicant has failed to provide specifics of the complained of scope of works, nor the dates and times of the works. It also says the applicant has failed to make specific allegations about whether the body corporate paid for the works, and if it did, why the works fell outside the scope of body corporate responsibility. To the extent the applicant wishes to inspect body corporate records relevant to works undertaken, she may do so provided she satisfies the mandatory pre-conditions.
• [99] In her reply, the applicant says her application is specifically directed towards works relating to Lots 1 and 2 that were undertaken in February 2024. She says she has a right to know why the works and expenditure were not approved by the committee.

• [100] The applicant is concerned that the body corporate has paid for maintenance works that the owners of Lots 1 and 2 are responsible for. I consider the application to be sufficiently specific as to the time period (February 2024), the area (yards of Lots 1 and 2), and the nature of such works (drainage works).
  • [101] The scheme's regular contractor in December 2023 noted on the invoice to the body corporate that he had inspected the Lot 1 and 2 courtyards in relation to prior reports of flooding and recommended certain works (see Invoice 35864) be undertaken to those areas.
  • [102] The body corporate acknowledges in its response to Outcome 5, that owners with the benefit of an exclusive use courtyard area of common property are responsible for maintaining those courtyards and any improvements installed therein.[36] Further, as noted above, because By-law 30 does not expressly authorise owners to make improvements to the allocated area of common property, the lot owner may only do so if authorised by the body corporate.[37]
  • [103] I considered that this part of the application might have some merit. Accordingly, I investigated by asking the body corporate whether it had paid for any drainage works in the exclusive use yards of Lots 1 and 2. The body corporate represented - via a new BCM - that it had not undertaken nor paid for any drainage works in those areas. It also represented that it was not aware that any such works had been undertaken in the courtyards of those lots.[38]
  • [104] There is not sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that the body corporate has expended funds on drainage works for the Lots 1 and 2 exclusive use areas. There is no basis, therefore, on which I could make the order requested by the applicant. I do not, however, consider this request to be frivolous or misconceived. The body corporate's plumbers did recommend drainage works for these areas and, where she has given a specific time period, I consider the applicant would likely have some basis for believing that such works were undertaken in February 2024. Accordingly, I am not dismissing this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act.

Outcome 7 - window works information and reimbursement

• [105] The applicant claims the owners of Lot 10 undertook a significant renovation of their lot. The applicant says she is unsure if the structure of the building was changed, however, she says as part of the renovation, windows were installed or aligned.[39] She says the owners of Lot 10 did not submit a motion to the committee or at a general meeting, however, at a November 2022 committee meeting, spending of over $2,000 was approved for the new windows.
• [106] The applicant says when she proposed a motion at a general meeting in 2023 seeking an explanation, the BCM confused Lot 9 - who had approval to upgrade their windows at their own expense to double glazed - with Lot 10, who did not pay for their own new windows. The applicant says the committee breached the code of conduct and she has a right to know where her levies are spent. She seeks an order that:

... the Body corp to provide an explanation why U10 owners got a job done for $2,162.00 plus GST from Ritcher to repair the 4 sets of double hung windows without the approval of the body corp or at least by OCM. To present invoice and to explain if the work was a body corp matter.

• [107] In response, the body corporate says it is responsible for maintaining the windows because they are located in an external boundary wall of the lot. It says those windows were repaired and the owners of Lot 10 presented the invoice to the committee which voted to approve reimbursement for those repairs. The body corporate says, if the applicant wishes to view the invoice, she may do so by complying with the mandatory pre-conditions for accessing body corporate records. Further, to the extent she seeks the committee's decision to be declared void, the time to do so has passed and no reasons are given for the delay.
• [108] In reply, the applicant says it is not clear whether Lot 10 damaged the windows during the renovation. The applicant also appears to be suggesting it is difficult to determine which elements of the scheme the body corporate is responsible for maintaining, and which elements are the responsibility of the body corporate.

• [109] Owners are obligated to maintain their lot in good condition, except for those parts of the lot that are the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[40]
• [110] The body corporate must, with some limited exceptions, maintain common property in good condition and maintain the structural aspects of common property in a structurally sound condition.[41] Where lots in the scheme are created under a building format plan (BFP) of subdivision (as Park Square is), unless there is an applicable exception, the body corporate has a duty to maintain other parts of the scheme in good condition, including:

... doors, windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property[42]

• [111] In this scheme, the body corporate is therefore the party responsible in the first instance for maintaining the windows at issue. As a result, if none of the exceptions applied, the body corporate would be obligated to pay to restore the windows to good condition.[43] The applicant has not suggested nor presented any evidence to suggest any of the exceptions apply or that the body corporate expended money to repair windows that were already in good condition. Accordingly, I decline to make the order sought.
• [112] I am not dismissing this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act because I do not consider this request to be frivolous or misconceived. Where the scheme includes townhouses but is registered as a BFP, and where other lot owners paid for their own windows to be improved (upgraded to double glazing), which party - an owner or the body corporate - it may not be readily apparent to a lot owner who bears responsibility for window maintenance.

• [113] The applicant says she proposed multiple motions for inclusion on the agenda for a general meeting of the body corporate. The applicant asserts that the committee's failure to include her motions on the agenda for an EGM called for October 2023 was a breach of the code of conduct and section 86 of the Standard Module. She seeks an order that:

... [t]he body corp to provide an explanation on why my 21 motions were NOT included at the October 2023 EGM which is against legislation. Section 86 of the Standard Module.

• [114] In response, the body corporate says the Communications Order provides that, except in genuine emergencies or with its permission, the applicant may only communicate with the body corporate in writing via post.[44] The Communication Orders also provided that the body corporate could disregard communications from the applicant that did not comply with the requirements of the orders.
• [115] The body corporate says the applicant posted a document dated 10 September 2023 listing her proposed motions and requesting they be included on the agenda for the annual general meeting (AGM). It says on 28 September 2023 it distributed the notices for the October 2023 EGM. It says on 29 September 2023 the BCM received a document in the mail from the applicant listing 19 proposed motions and requesting they be included on the agenda for the AGM. It says those motions were included on the agenda for the scheme's December AGM.
• [116] Although it acknowledges it received an email from the applicant on 25 September 2023 with her motions for the AGM, the body corporate says it disregarded that email as it did not comply with the Communication Order that the applicant communicate only via post.
• [117] In reply, the applicant says her motions were received prior to the calling of the EGM and the legislation required them to be included in the next general meeting.

• [118] The legislation certainly provides that motions for consideration at general meetings may be submitted at any time by an owner or the committee.[45] Section 86(5) of the Standard Module -requires that the body corporate include a motion submitted by an owner on the next general meeting agenda "on which it is practicable to do so."[46] I am not aware of any provision that requires the body corporate to give a person submitting a motion(s) reasons why it was not practicable for the motion to be included on the agenda for an imminent general meeting.
• [119] I am satisfied in the circumstances the body corporate was acting within the bounds of reasonable decision making when it decided not to include the applicant's 19 motions on the agenda for the EGM. I am satisfied the body corporate could have reasonably decided it was not practicable to include 19 additional motions to the agenda (with pages of explanatory notes) for an EGM notice to be distributed a few days later but to instead include those motions on the agenda for the AGM which was to be held a few months later.[47] In addition, and in the alternative, where I am satisfied the applicant's motions were in fact included on the agenda for the December 2023 AGM, I do not in any event believe it would be just and equitable at this point to make the requested order sought. Accordingly, I decline to make the order sought.
• [120] I am not dismissing this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act. Although it could be seen as potentially vexatious, where a lot owner has an interest in having their motions considered as soon as practicable and an EGM was noticed shortly around the same time the applicant owner submitted motions for consideration at the AGM, I do not consider this request to be necessarily misconceived or vexatious.

• [121] The applicant complains she did not receive minutes within the required 21 day period of a vote outside committee meeting (VOCM) on 26 February 2024, which involved a decision to engage a law firm to advise the body corporate on issues with the fencing contractor. She says the committee breached the legislation, including by not distributing the minutes until 40 days after the committee made its decision.
• [122] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp to provide an explanation on why I have received 40 days later an OCM voted on 26 February 2024.

• [123] In response, the body corporate acknowledges that minutes of a VOCM are required to be distributed within 21 days of the VOCM and that the applicant may not have received the minutes at issue - which were sent to her by ordinary post - until 38 days after the decision was made. The body corporate says the minutes were sent to owners in the ordinary course following the decision and suggests any delay was a minor irregularity and non-compliance of an insubstantial nature.[48] The body corporate says any such technical non-compliance should be excused as it did not cause any detriment to the applicant, nor did it involve any bad faith on the committee's part.
• [124] In reply, the applicant provides evidence of an envelope date stamped 3 April 2024 to demonstrate when the minutes were mailed. She claims it is her right to know why the information was not delivered to her on time.

• [125] I am satisfied the applicant has demonstrated there was technical non-compliance with the legislation regarding distribution of the minutes for the February 2024 VOCM. However, I note from the materials that around the same time, the body corporate received notice as a creditor that the fencing contractor it had engaged to perform works at significant cost had entered into a voluntary wind-up arrangement. In the circumstances, I consider the delay in distributing minutes and therefore the contravention of the legislation was minor, and insubstantial. Further, where it caused no detriment to the applicant, I decline to make the order sought.

• [126] The applicant describes the body corporate's decision to approve the Fencing Works (the same works referenced in Outcomes 3 and 5) as the "Fiasco Fence Job." She says the motion was not clear and the works were not included in the sinking fund budget for the year.
• [127] The applicant says this was the committee's first large project and that it was undertaken without a system, control, or supervision. She says it should have had a clear contract, members were not on site to discuss which areas would be worked on, it failed to supervise the contractor who was on site for more than a month not working, and they put the safety of residents at risk. The applicant also claims that the owners of Lots 1 and 2 proceeded with drainage works without approval, which works caused more issues with the fencing.
• [128] The applicant says $47,569 was paid to the fencing contractor. Further, she says additional funds have been expended on the BCM and lawyer's time.
• [129] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp (ONLY THE OWNERS THAT AGREED TO) to return (or to enforce the 4 committee members Clarke U1, Matthews U2, Marinic U3 and Silva U6) the $ 47,569.50 wasted with the Fence Contractor for a Fiasco Fence Job for submitting and approving an unlawful motion (no reference to backyard timber perimeter fences replacement or repair) and for the way the contractor was allowed " to hang around without supervision".

• [130] In response, the body corporate says the applicant appears to be suggesting it was the committee that engaged the fencing contractor, that the committee acted unreasonably when it did so, and that the fencing works are defective. It says in fact, the fencing works were approved at the October 2023 EGM by the body corporate. Moreover, it says the applicant has failed to identify any grounds why it acted unreasonably in deciding to approve the works and she did not challenge the decision within the required timeframe.[49]
• [131] The body corporate says it is not for the adjudicator to consider in this application whether the fencing works were defective. It notes the fencing contractor entered into liquidation in late February 2024 and says it has issued a proof of debt claim and taken steps to pursue the fencing company. Finally, it says the applicant makes no specific assertions and provides no evidence of a breach of the committee code of conduct.
• [132] In reply, the applicant says the motion for the fencing works was unlawful because the contract was unclear and did not state the contractor would replace the timber perimeter fences. She claims the motion included works to replace 3 fences for Lots 1, 2 and 3 without any evidence those fences were in need of repair. She says the body corporate should only have agreed to split the cost of those fences if there was evidence of decay or other need for replacement. In addition, she says the metal fences were covered by vegetation. Although she says some near the driveway needed work, the ones in private yards did not.
• [133] The applicant says the contractor was working in Lot 1's yard just before he stopped the Fencing Works. She says he was not supervised and damaged Lot 1's fence. The applicant also says the owner of Lot 6 has since replaced the dividing fence - and it is not clear who paid - completely changing the style. Finally, she says significant sums have been wasted.

• [134] In my view, there are multiple reasons why this aspect of the application must fail.
• [135] Firstly, I am satisfied that it was the body corporate (and not the committee) that resolved at its October 2023 EGM to approve the Fencing Works and associated expenditure.[50] There is a statutory time limit to make an adjudication application to challenge a decision made by the body corporate.[51] An adjudicator may waive non-compliance with the time limits where there is a good reason to do so.[52]
• [136] In this case, the applicant is not directly challenging the body corporate's October 2023 EGM fencing resolution and does not seek an order that the resolution be declared void.[53] Instead, more than a year after it was made, she seeks to challenge that resolution in an indirect manner by suggesting the motion was unlawful or the works were not necessary. She does not challenge the resolution itself.
• [137] Secondly, it is obviously very unfortunate for all owners that the contractor went into liquidation after the body corporate had apparently made substantial payments but before the works were completed. It is unclear how much fencing was completed before the contractor went into liquidation, and no evidence presented as to the extent of the funds that were lost or may not be recovered. Moreover, I am satisfied that the body corporate is taking steps as a creditor to recover funds from the debtor contractor.
• [138] Thirdly, the applicant has not pointed to a legal basis on which an adjudicator would be empowered in the circumstances to order that the body corporate seek to recover funds from individual owners, either in their capacity as owners voting in favour of a motion or as committee members.
• [139] For these reasons, I have dismissed this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act because I consider it to be misconceived and without substance.

Outcome 11 - reimbursement of funds from committee members

• [140] At an EGM in 2022, the applicant says the committee sought to increase its spending limit for the purpose of paying a law firm. She says the expenditure on legal fees by the committee to defend its actions and attack her in court is a breach of the committee code of conduct. Although she does not have the total amount paid, she says the body corporate has wasted around $25,000 per lot on legal fees and BCM administration charges. As an example of the latter, she points to 4 letters sent out by the BCM to neighbours.
• [141] The applicant says she has a right to oppose decisions and watch how her levies are spent. She says the expenditure has reached scandalous levels.
• [142] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp to enforce the 4 committee members to return the money paid to Grace Lawyers without permission of the body corp as well as the administration cost of sending several letters including to the 4 neighbours on the Fiasco Fence Job that ended in a disaster.

• [143] In response, the body corporate says the committee resolved in February 2024 to retain lawyers to provide advice, at a cost not exceeding its spending limit, in connection with all matters relating to the Fencing Works. It says the motion, resolution, engagement, and instructions were all properly made and there is no basis for the relief sought. Regarding the letters sent by the BCM, it says the applicant has not identified the letters or explained how she claims associated costs were improperly incurred.
• [144] In her reply, the applicant refers to more general allegations of wrongdoings and improper spending and that a committee member does not have the capacity to deal with difficult projects.

• [145] The applicant has not explained with any specificity on what basis she could challenge, some years later, the body corporate's decision in 2022 to increase the spending limit for the committee. Nor does she explain how (or when) the committee is breaching the code of conduct by expending body corporate funds to engage lawyers.
• [146] Even if I was to infer the applicant is suggesting the committee or the body corporate were not acting reasonably in this regard, she has not identified which specific legal engagements she is challenging or why she believes particular decisions or engagements were unreasonable. Put simply, the applicant has failed to provide any, much less sufficient, details on which to base a claim that the committee or individual members have somehow contravened the Act.
• [147] Further, section 101A of the Act operates to protect committee members from civil liability relating to acts or omissions made in good faith and without negligence. The applicant's allegations of purported mis-spending are generalised and lacking in particularity. Moreover, she has failed to establish that any individual committee member acted in bad faith or negligently in engaging and paying a law firm or the administrative costs of sending letters relating to the Fencing Works. For these reasons, this portion of the application is dismissed as frivolous, misconceived, and without substance.

• [148] The applicant says the body corporate entered into a conciliation agreement with her and has breached its agreement. She says it also contravened the legislation by not enforcing the parking by-laws and has breached the code of conduct by allowing continued by-law breaches that are a risk to her safety. It has also failed to perform maintenance for which it is responsible which has meant the complex is no longer secure.
• [149] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the Body Corp to reimburse lot owner 16 the cost of the Conciliation 0289-2024 for $ 104,10 and this present Adjudication Order for $ 110,30 since the committee / body corp breached the Conciliation Agreement.

• [150] In response, the body corporate says an order can only be made in favour of the applicant if she made a conciliation application for the same dispute, the body corporate was the respondent, and it failed to participate without reasonable excuse. It says both parties attended and participated in conciliation. The body corporate also denies it breached the conciliation agreement and notes that would not, in any event, be a basis to make the order.
• [151] In reply, the applicant says she is exhausted with the dealings with the committee, BCM, and the law firm, the building is rundown, the body corporate accounts are depleted, and her safety is at risk with the parking by-law breaches. She says she has had to waste money on conciliation and adjudication applications as well as on printing.

• [152] In circumstances where a conciliation of a dispute was ended because the respondent did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to participate and where an applicant has made a request for reimbursement, an adjudicator may order the respondent to reimburse the applicant for the fees paid to lodge their conciliation and adjudication applications.[54]
• [153] In this case, the respondent body corporate did participate in the conciliation and that conciliation was not ended because of a failure of the respondent to participate. As a result, I have no power to make an order that the applicant be reimbursed. This portion of the application is dismissed as misconceived.

• [154] The applicant says the exit gate at the scheme has been damaged since July 2024 and the entrance gate has been damaged since August 2024. She says the body corporate's failure to repair the gates is a contravention of its duty to maintain. In addition, she says it takes away her right to live in a secure complex. The applicant also claims at one point in August 2024 her power was cut off by the owner of Lot 1. She does not explain how this is relevant to the order she seeks about the gates.
• [155] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp (or to enforce the committee) to carry out the URGENT repair of both motorized gates.

• [156] In response, the body corporate acknowledges it has a duty to maintain common property in good condition or structurally sound condition. It explains that the common property motorised gate was damaged by an occupier of Lot 9. An insurance claim was lodged, monies were received, and work orders issued for the repairs to the automatic gates and doors. It points to a circular it issued to owners and occupiers in November 2024 explaining the reasons for the delays in repairing the gates. The body corporate says the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the gates are not currently in good condition and this order should not be made.
• [157] In reply, the applicant says in September 2024 she asked the committee to urgently attend to repairs to the gates. Despite her request, she says as of 2 December 2024 both gates remained open and inoperable. She adds that the committee did not take action until more than a month after the exit gate was damaged. After the applicant was referred to adjudication, the applicant also provided on more than one occasion (uninvited) additional information, including about the gates. She asserted the gates had been replaced on 4 December 2024 but were again out of order within 5 days and the intercom was also not working. I also infer her to be claiming the gates were again out of order in March 2025.
• [158] I investigated this aspect of the dispute by asking the body corporate for an update on the status of the motorised gates, including to confirm whether or not the gates had been fully repaired and were currently operational. On 22 April 2025, the body corporate represented that the "entry and exit gates are now repaired, installed and fully operational however there [sic] ongoing issues with electrical circuits that intermittently interrupt operations."

• [159] The body corporate does not dispute that it has a statutory obligation to repair the motorised gates. The crux of the applicant's claim is that the repairs took far longer than the applicant thought was reasonable. Her more recent (uninvited) submissions suggest the repairs were not wholly successful in fixing the gates.
• [160] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the body corporate has taken steps to have the gates repaired. While those steps may not have been taken as promptly as the applicant would have liked, the body corporate took steps to explain to the owners and occupiers the reasons for the delay. I am satisfied it acted reasonably in this regard.
• [161] Where it appears that there are continuing issues with the gates relating to electrical circuits, the body corporate is obligated to investigate and resolve those issues. Given one function of the gates is to provide security at the scheme, I consider the committee is obligated to resolve the electrical issues as quickly as possible. However, where the body corporate is aware of the issue and its duty to maintain, I see no benefit and do not consider it warranted or appropriate to make an order that the body corporate comply with its legislative obligations.
• [162] For the above reasons, I decline to make the order requested by the applicant and have dismissed this part of the application. I do not, however, consider this part of the application to be frivolous or misconceived because, at the time the application was made, the gates were not working and there was some substance to the applicant's complaint.

• [163] The applicant says the committee breached the committee code of conduct in connection with the Fencing Works because:
  1. its members did not care about the large amounts of body corporate funds wasted by proceeding with such a complicated and unnecessary job
  2. it confused the body corporate and the fence contractor by including perimeter timber fences which were not part of the fencing contract
  3. it allowed Lots 1 and 2 to proceed with drainage works without formal approval and which works interfered with and caused delays in the fencing works
  4. 3 of the committee members - the owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3 - included replacement of their own fences in the fencing works
  5. the committee did not seek the 50% contribution towards the costs from those owners/committee members until she submitted her application for conciliation, even then, the owner of Lot 1 did not pay until a month after the due date
  6. it did not supervise the contractor, who spent more than a month doing the fencing works related to Lots 1, 2 and 3, and
  7. when the fencing contractor abandoned the works, the 3 committee members decided without body corporate approval to engage a different contractor to replace their internal fences, dividing fences and gates, including 4 custom gates with hinges.
• [164] The applicant also asserts that one of the invoices (0144 for $7,462.40), apparently for fencing works, does not specify the works or which lots it relates to. She says this is an example of the BCM paying invoices without due care and without committee supervision. Although the owners of the 3 lots have since paid the body corporate $5,044.85, she says the body corporate has not been reimbursed for the remaining $2,417.55.
• [165] Finally, she claims those owners/committee members have not explained why they needed these fences and gates completely replaced, especially in view of the money the body corporate lost with the original fencing contractor.
• [166] The applicant seeks an order that:

... the body corp to enforce the committee members U1, U2 and U3 to return the full amount for the replacement of their internal fences and dividing fences with the common property.

• [167] In response, the body corporate says the original contractor was engaged to perform works on fences between the exclusive use areas of common property allocated to Lots 1, 2, and 3, and unallocated common property (Shared Fences). The body corporate agreed to organise and supply the fencing service and the respective lot owners agreed to bear half of the costs. When the original fencing contractor went into liquidation and the works were not completed, a second firm was engaged to complete the works. The body corporate says each of those lot owners paid the amounts agreed for the supply of fencing services.
• [168] In reply, the applicant says the 3 lot owners did not provide any evidence to the body corporate why the Shared Fences needed replacing. After the original contractor went into liquidation, she says the 3 lot owners decided to have the new contractor replace the fences between their respective exclusive use areas (Owner Fences) and gates. She says this was done without body corporate approval.
• [169] Moreover, the applicant claims body corporate funds were used to pay for these works and that the committee did not seek reimbursement from the owners of the lots until she made an application for conciliation. She says, even then, the owner of Lot 1 was a month late in paying the invoice.
• [170] Where the 3 Shared Fences at issue appeared from the plans to be of similar lengths, I sought further information from the body corporate why the invoice to Lot 1 ($670.09) for 50% of the Shared Fences and gates was much lower than the invoices to Lots 2 and 3 ($2,173.13 and $2,201.63). The body corporate responded by noting the invoices for Lots 2 and 3 were higher because they included amounts relating to Owner Fences between the exclusive use areas of Lots 2 and 3.

• [171] When presenting the fencing quotes at the 2023 EGM, the committee identified at least 4 different combinations of ownership and maintenance responsibilities for fences at the scheme. Specifically:
  1. fences for which the body corporate is entirely responsible (BC Fences)
  2. fences that are on the boundary between scheme and non-scheme land, and for which the neighbouring land owners may share responsibility with the body corporate
  3. Shared Fences that the body corporate and lot owners were jointly responsible, and
  4. Owner Fences between two areas of exclusive use areas allocated to lots which are the joint responsibility of those lot owners to maintain.
• [172] At the EGM, owners were advised that the Owner Fences were expressly excluded from the quoted fencing works. However, after the original contractor went into liquidation, I understand that the new contractor retained to complete the fencing works did in fact perform works to both the Shared Fences and the Owner Fences.
• [173] I am satisfied the body corporate was invoiced for those works and the invoice was payable on 19 March 2024. I am also satisfied the body corporate did not invoice the owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3 for their contribution to the Shared Fence and Owner Fence works until 4 June 2024.
• [174] There is no dispute that the owners of those lots have paid the invoiced amounts to the body corporate. However, the applicant seeks an order that the body corporate take action to have the 3 owners reimburse the body corporate for the entirety of the works for Shared Fences and Owner Fences, i.e., an additional $2,417.55.
• [175] Bodies corporate are permitted to supply services for the benefit of lot owners under certain conditions.[55] I am satisfied that, at its 2023 EGM, in approving the original fencing quote, the body corporate voted to enter into a cost sharing with the owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3 for works to the Shared Fences. Where the new fencing contractor subsequently also did work to the Owner Fences, and the body corporate initially paid for those works and took almost 3 months to invoice the respective lot owners, I can understand the applicant's concerns about the use of body corporate funds.
• [176] The invoice from the new fencing contractor did not break down the charges for works on the Shared Fences and gates versus the Owner Fences, nor did the body corporate's invoices describe how it calculated the respective amounts invoiced to the owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3. I consider the applicant to be asserting that the body corporate failed to act reasonably when it decided to seek reimbursement for $5,044.85 from the 3 lot owners and to effectively contribute $2,417.55 towards works relating to the Shared Fences.
• [177] Whether the committee acted reasonably in apportioning the costs must be considered in the circumstances. Those circumstances include that, it is difficult to apportion the respective costs of labour and materials between the different works, the body corporate had previously agreed to split the costs of the Shared Fences, and the committee invoiced (and received from) the owners of Lot 2 and 3 a higher amount to cover the costs of the Owner Fences.
• [178] Apart from implying that certain committee members benefited from the works on the Shared and Owner Fences, the applicant has not explained why she believes the body corporate acted unreasonably in deciding to apportion $2,417.55 as its contribution to the Shared Fences in those circumstances. While in the interests of transparency it may be preferable that the committee shared its apportionment calculations - especially where there has been work to some committee member's Owner and Shared Fences - it is not obligated to do so.
• [179] In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that the body corporate acted unreasonably in making the apportionment decision. Further, where the body corporate's contribution does not seem on its face to be disproportionate to the owner contributions, I am also not satisfied the body corporate made a legally unreasonable decision.
• [180] For these reasons I decline to make the order sought and have dismissed this part of the application. That said, where the body corporate initially paid for works to the Owner Fences that were expressly excluded from quotes presented at the EGM and for which it was not responsible, I am of the view there was some substance to this part of the application. Accordingly, I am not dismissing this part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c).

• [181] The body corporate points to the power of an adjudicator to order costs of up to $2,000 against an applicant where the application is dismissed pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act. It says it would be appropriate to do so here where:
  1. this application lacks any jurisdictional basis and does not establish any reasons why it would be just and equitable to make any of the orders sought by the applicant
  2. this application ignores and misstates the true facts and legal principles, proceeds on unfounded assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations
  3. this application repeats allegations that have already been addressed
  4. former applications by the applicant have been dismissed as misconceived, and
  5. adjudicators have warned the applicant about making misconceived applications without supporting evidence.
• [182] It says the applicant is not getting the message that it is inappropriate to continue making misconceived applications. Where the body corporate has incurred significant legal expense, it asks for an order that the applicant pay a fixed amount of $2,000 towards those costs.

• [183] I have dismissed parts of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I consider my power to make a costs order is enlivened. However, the power of an adjudicator to award costs is a discretionary one and I must consider whether it is appropriate to exercise that power in the circumstances of this application.
• [184] In considering whether to exercise that discretion here, I have taken into account prior adjudicator's orders that have found certain of the applicant's previous applications to be completely misconceived, without substance, and in some cases, vexatious. I have also considered the range of orders sought in this application and my determinations about each of those orders.
• [185] Although I consider several of the issues raised and a number of the orders sought to be about trivial issues for which the applicant suffered no harm, or were founded on misconceptions, I did make orders in response to one of the outcomes sought. And, while I dismissed the vast majority of the application, several aspects were dismissed on the grounds that the issue had since been resolved or for another reason that did not mean the applicant's concerns were necessarily frivolous or had no merit. On balance, in those circumstances, I do not consider it just and equitable to order costs against the applicant for this application and I decline to do so.

• [186] I have made orders and dismissed the balance of the application for the reasons given above.
• [187] Although I have not required the committee to give the applicant any reasons for its reconsidered decision on whether it believes there are contraventions of the parking by-laws by occupiers that are likely to be repeated and/or what action if any it will take, the committee may well decide it would be reasonable and prudent to do so.
• [188] I am also conscious that a new dispute may arise out of my decision to order the committee to reconsider its views. I gave the issue of potential future disputes serious thought. I concluded that my role is to make orders I consider are just and equitable to resolve the current dispute in the application before me, which is what I have done.
• [189] Ultimately, self-management is an inherent part of bodies corporate in community titles scheme. The legislation is certainly complex in some areas and understanding and complying with it can be difficult for owners, committees, bodies corporate, and their advisers. In my view, it is unlikely a body corporate can be in perfect compliance at all times. Although there will likely be mis-steps, they are often minor or technical, and mis-steps do not necessarily mean there is misfeasance or malfeasance. Going forward, I encourage the applicant to only raise genuine issues of material concern and in a brief and polite manner.
• [190] For their part, the body corporate and its committee have the power to make decisions affecting owners' rights and have various powers to authorise the expenditure of collective funds. It stands to reason, therefore, that those bodies are held to a higher standard than individual owners and are obligated by the legislation to act reasonably in making decisions.

[1] See e.g., Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 158; Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 242; Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 242 and Park Square [2023] QBCCMCmr 7

[2] See Park Square [2023] QBCCMCmr 7 affirmed on appeal in Duffy v Body Corporate for Park Square [2025] QCATA 22

[3] See id. The orders also imposed limits on the volume and length of communications. Acknowledging the conditions for communication proposed by the body corporate were particularly restrictive, the adjudicator was satisfied in the particular and unusual circumstances that they were appropriate and warranted "given the persistent and inappropriate nature of the respondent's past conduct." Id. at [33]

[5] When investigating the status of the dispute about maintenance of the gate (outcome 13), I caused a copy of the applicant's reply to the body corporate's submission to be provided to the respondent.

[6] See id. at Section 276(1) of the Act

[7] See Sections 227 and 229 of the Act

[8] The applicant also complains that the respondent was given an extension of time to make its submission.

[11] See Sections 182(1)(a) and 183(1)(a) of the Act

[12] See Sections 182(1)(b) and 183(1)(b) of the Act

[13] See Sections 182 and 183 of the Act

[14] See id. The legislation provides that the notice must state certain things. Although not compulsory, the body corporate can choose to use forms provided by the BCCM Office (i.e., the BCCM Form 10 and or the BCCM Form 11 notice). If issuing a contravention notice does not resolve the issue, the body corporate can take further steps to enforce its by-laws.

[15] See Section 182(3) and 183(3) of the Act

[16] See Sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act; see also Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall (Beaches) [2016] QCATA 177

[20] See Section 227(1)(a) of the Act

[22] See above at paragraphs [31]-[32]

[23] See Park Square [2023] QBCCMCmr 7 allegations of parking contraventions by occupiers of Lot 6, with submissions by Lot 6 at [11] and adjudicator's findings at [60] - [65]; and Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 242 at [68] - [78]

[24] The current CMS for the scheme was registered by Dealing 720585353 on 12 February 2021

[26] This is not an exhaustive list of relevant factors. There may be other things that are relevant, for example, if the committee was aware of the applicant's issuance of Form 1 notices and notes to occupiers and how those occupiers were responding.

[28] See Section 233(1) of the Standard Module, noting there is a prescribed fee for inspection of records set forth in section 233(1)(a)(i)

[29] See Woodgate Beach Houses [2022] QBCCMCmr 463 at [27].

[30] It is possible that the applicant is also concerned that the recommended (but unquoted) works were also performed. I consider that concern is likely the subject of the order she seeks for Outcome 6.

[31] Even if I was to consider the question of approval, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding on that issue. Further, it is not disputed that the body corporate was responsible for the maintenance works.

[32] There were delays with the fencing works and the contractor filed for bankruptcy. It is not clear how much money the body corporate lost, however, that is not relevant to the requested outcome.

[33] The applicant also says a member of the committee is engaging in retaliatory behaviour, including by disconnecting her electricity and leaving her without power_._

[34] See Section 193(3) of the Standard Module

[35] The body corporate raised this issue in its submission and the applicant was on notice it claimed to have no record of authorising her improvements. I infer from her failure to dispute this claim in her reply that the improvements were not authorised.

[37] See Section 193(3) of the Standard Module

[38] I note that a person must not state anything the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular to an adjudicator. See Section 297 of the Act

[39] Attachment 1 to application at point 2 re "aligning windows in Lot 10"

[40] See Section 211 of the Standard Module

[41] See Section 180(1) of the Standard Module; for examples of where the obligation to maintain common property may shift to the lot owner see id. at sections 180(3)-(4) and 180(2)

[42] See Section 180(2)(a) of the Standard Module

[43] The body corporate is not responsible for maintaining fixtures or fittings installed by an occupier for their own benefit (Section 180(3)), and it can recover costs as a debt from a person whose actions cause or contribute to the damage or deterioration of a part of the lot it is responsible for maintaining (Section 180(5)).

[44] See Park Square [2019] QBCCMCmr 158

[45] See Section 86(1)(a) of the Standard Module

[46] See Section 86(5) of the Standard Module

[47] The Communication Orders require the applicant to communicate via post and gives the body corporate the discretion to disregard emails from the applicant. In some circumstances, the committee may arguably be acting unreasonably if it decides to exercise its discretion to do so. I do not need to consider that issue for this outcome sought because, even if the committee had accepted the emailed motions, it was only obligated to include them on the EGM agenda if it was practicable to do so.

[48] The body corporate cites Carroll and Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21 at [22] - [23] and Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 (QDC, unreported, Bolton, 4080-2000, 29 May 2001)

[50] The EGM minutes show owners voted 9 in favour of the motion, with none abstaining and none against.

[51] The time limit for challenging a body corporate resolution is 3 months. See Section 242(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Act

[52] See Section 242(4)(b) of the Act

[53] The applicant would have needed to show good reason why the time limit should be waived.

[55] See Section 210 of the Standard Module