MAINTENANCE - where the applicant replaced the common property roof of their lot - where the body corporate has not fully reimbursed the applicant for the cost of the work - whether orders are warranted.
Within 60 days of the date of this order the Body Corporate for Parker must pay the applicant, Thanh Dang Pham, the amount of $6,000 as reimbursement for roofing repairs on Lot 4.
If required, the Body Corporate for Parker must take any necessary steps available to it under the legislation to raise the funds needed to meet its liability under order 1.
[7]
[1] This application is about liability for repairs.
[2] The applicant is the owner of Lot 11 but was previously the owner of Lot 4. Following a building inspection report saying the Lot 4 roof required replacement, a contractor engaged by the applicant replaced the roof at a cost of $7,480 in July 2022. The body corporate reimbursed the applicant $1,480 in June 2023 and indicated it would reimburse the remainder when funds were available. But to date it has not done so despite repeated requests.
[3] The applicant says the body corporate's reasons for not paying are flawed. They say other owners have been reimbursed. They seek an order for the remaining $6,000.
[8]
[1] Parker community titles scheme 43843 (Parker) is a 12-lot scheme in Ipswich. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 240191.
[2] The application seeks the following orders:
An order that the Body Corporate for Parker CTS 43843 pay to the applicant, Mr Thanh Dang Pham, the amount of $6,000 as reimbursement for roof replacement works carried out at Lot 4, 41 Old Logan Road, Gailes QLD 4300, following storm and water ingress damage in 2022, as resolved at the Annual General Meeting on 15 August 2022 and Extraordinary General Meetings on 17 November 2022 and 22 November 2022
An order that the Body Corporate for Parker CTS 43843 take all necessary steps to raise a special levy or otherwise facilitate payment of the above amount to the applicant, if required.
[9]
[3] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions. [2]
[10]
[4] This application was lodged on 16 September 2025.
[5] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[3] One submission was made. The applicant obtained and responded to the submission.[4]
[6] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[6]
[11]
[7] For an insurance claim regarding storm damage in April 2022, Bay Building Services provided a builder assessment report in May 2022. The report said multiple units had experienced water ingress and damage as a direct result of the storm event. It confirmed that damage in 3 lots was consistent with water damage. For Lot 4, it noted water stains to the ceiling in the living room, kitchen and bathroom, and an ongoing maintenance related issue with the entry.
[8] The report also said the roof of Lot 4 had met the end of its serviceable life. It said, in its opinion, the water ingress was due to leaking along the barge capping and along cracks and joins to the sheeting. Amongst other maintenance required at the scheme, it said the Lot 4 roof needed replacement. It recommended the maintenance be done to before any internal repairs.
[9] The applicant provides an email invoice receipt dated 28 July 2022 for $7,480 to dismantle the old roof and install new roofing and capping.
[10] At its annual general meeting (AGM) on 15 August 2022 resolved (Motion 17(a)) to record a new by-law to grant exclusive use to owners, which was said to transfer the responsibility for future repairs and maintenance of dwellings to owners. Motion 17(b) then resolved that any repairs or maintenance required to any lots be documented within 30 days of the meeting and conditional on committee approval of the works, and would be the responsibility of the body corporate but deferred until funds were available. The minutes included a note that "The meeting acknowledged and agreed that lots 4 & 8 have already submitted quotes for re-roofing which have been approved and costs will be re-imbursed when funds are available." The AGM approved Lot 8 roof repairs and reimbursement for Lot 9 roof repairs (Motions 18 and 19).
[11] A new CMS was recorded on 8 November 2022 that included the exclusive use allocations.[7]
[12] On 17 November 2022 the body corporate manager (BCM) issued notice of an 'extra motion' to be considered at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 22 November 2022. This motion proposed "That reimbursement be made to the owner of Unit 4 for Roof Works totalling $7,480 (see attached)." It appears the invoice receipt was attached.
[13] At that EGM the body corporate resolved (at Motion 8) "...that reimbursement be made to the owner of Lot 4 for roofing works totalling $1,480 when funds are available". The minutes do not indicate any resolution to amend the previously notified motion, or any other explanation given for the different amount. The EGM minutes show there were other motions about works to lots and the reimbursement to owners for repairs to lots, a discussion on the scheme's lack of funds, and a dispute with the insurer about a claim for repairs to Lots 4, 5, 8 and 10.
[14] Emails in July 2023 between another owner and the BCM indicated there had been an acknowledged clerical error in the minutes for EGM Motion 8 and that the reimbursement was actually for $7,480. The owner asked the BCM to rectify the error so the applicant could be compensated correctly. The BCM advised the amount approved was $1,480 which been paid. They said another motion was needed. They confirmed a motion for $6,000 reimbursement would be put to a further meeting. The BCM said to let the applicant know "...he will eventually get paid but there are no funds currently available to do so...".
[15] An AGM was held in July 2023. That meeting failed to pass motions proposing alternatives to fund maintenance costs. The body corporate also failed to pass a motion (Motion 14) to raise a special levy for "...reimbursement of the remaining balance for roof replacement carried out in Lot 4...". A note to the motion said the total cost was $7,480 and $1,480 was reimbursed in June 2023. Another motion (Motion 13) for a special levy to reimburse Lot 2 for previously approved work also failed. The minutes record a general business discussion on the funding of outstanding claims to owners. It noted over $54,000 was owing to 6 lots (including Lot 4). Some owners apparently agreed to accept reduced amounts. But it identified no reduction for Lot 4 because it was a roof replacement that was fully claimable under the by-laws.
[16] The applicant sold Lot 4 in August 2023, but remained owner of Lot 11.
[17] In February 2024 the BCM told the applicant a meeting in March would deal with outstanding payments to owners including the applicant's $6,000. I am unclear if that meeting was held.
[18] On 9 May 2024 an adjudicator determined an application by the owner of Lot 6 for reimbursement of repairs to their lot following a hailstorm in 2020.[8] The owner said the damage arose from the body corporate's failure to maintain the roof. An insurance claim following storm damage in January 2021 was partially declined because of wet rot in the lot.
[19] The adjudicator concluded the internal damage to Lot 6 was caused by rainwater ingress over time, exacerbated by the storm in January 2021. The adjudicator determined the owner was entitled to reimbursement and ordered that to the statutory limit in section 281 of the Act of $10,000. The adjudicator declined to order that a special levy be raised and said it was for the body corporate to decide how the funds would be raised.
[20] Ezy Projects provided a builder's roof report for Lot 4 in June 2025, apparently for another insurance claim. It said the main roof was recently replaced and installed at a compliant pitch. It said the roof was in good condition however some fixings were overtightened, a TV cable had been affixed with silicone, and gutter guards were in poor condition. It then described issues with the garage roof. It concluded that while the main roof was in serviceable condition with minor workmanship issues, the garage roof and adjoining wall and flashing showed clear signs of non-compliance, inadequate detailing, and long-term weather-related degradation.
[21] Associated correspondence in July 2025 from an insurance loss adjuster indicates roofing issues with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. It said significant work was required from the body corporate to ensure the roofs were watertight.
[12]
[22] A submission was made by the BCM on behalf of the committee. It includes further documentation. It says the committee's position is:
There is no valid resolution authorising payment of the claimed $6,000.
The requirements of section 281 of the Act have not been satisfied as the work has not been shown to be urgent or reasonably incurred.
The roof defects were chronic, not acute emergencies.
The work was not reasonably incurred as it was carried out by an unlicenced contractor, with no evidence of safety compliance, asbestos handling, or insurances. There was no scope of works or photographs, no proof of urgency or consultation.
The work was carried out without prior committee approval and exceeded the committee's spending limit, by-passing due process.
Any reimbursement right was attached to Lot 4 and not the applicant personally. The applicant has sold the lot and provided no evidence of the assignment of rights.
The current owner of Lot 4 continues to experience significant roof defects, suggesting the original works were incomplete or ineffective.
Owners expressly rejected any motion to fund the remaining amount.
The previous adjudication decision was fact specific and not determinative here.
The contractor invoice lacks details and does not meet any reasonable standard of documentation required for body corporate reimbursement.
If the adjudicator considers awarding reimbursement, it requests that the applicant provide a bank statement or transaction proof of purchase, valid QBCC licence and asbestos clearance documentation, a scope of works clearly referencing Lot 4, photographic evidence of the work, confirmation from the current owner of Lot 4 that no further claim will be made, evidence there was no insurance payout for the same work, and a compliant tax invoice. It says any payment should only be made to the current owner unless a valid assignment is made, and the amount payable should be reduced by any insurance proceeds and paid in instalments over 3 months.
[23] The applicant rejects the submission. They say the overwhelming evidence is that they undertook urgent roof repairs in 2022 due to the body corporate's failure to maintain the common property. They say the body corporate acknowledged and approved the works. They assert the refusal to reimburse the applicant constitutes unjust enrichment, in that the body corporate received the benefit of a new common property roof funded by the applicant.
[24] The applicant reply to the submission also includes:
The absence of a fresh resolution does not provide a lawful excuse for non-payment when a statutory duty exists and has been breached.
The body corporate acknowledged and approved the works.
The urgency and reasonableness requirements were satisfied.
Delaying the roof replacement would have risked progressive and extensive property damage to the lot and potentially adjacent areas.
The body corporate provided no alternative solution at the time and left the applicant with no choice but to act.
The cost for roof removal and replacement was reasonable and not challenged.
The absence of a contractor licence does not negate the body corporate's liability. The body corporate raised no objections to the contractor's credentials at the time.
If the body corporate had concerns about compliance, it could have made arrangements for the work itself. It chose not to.
By agreeing in principle to reimburse in August 2022 and acknowledging the works were approved, the body corporate accepted how the work was carried out.
Even if engaging an unlicenced builder was a technical breach by the contractor, the body corporate still benefited from the repairs that the applicant paid for.
Allowing the body corporate to avoid payment because the owner did not seek permission would lead to absurd results and incentivise committee's stonewalling urgent repairs and penalise owners to prevent escalating damage.
The right to reimbursement belongs to the person who incurred the expense, not the property itself. He paid $7,480 in 2022 when he was the owner and the cause of action to recover that money vested in him at the time. The subsequent sale of the lot does not extinguish that right. The purchaser of Lot 4 did not pay the applicant for the new roof or take an assignment of the reimbursement claim. The current owner of Lot 4 has not made a claim for $6,000 and is pursuing entirely separate insurance issues related to other roof components. There is no risk of double recovery or competing claims.
In all discussions, the body corporate treated it as owing to the applicant personally after he sold Lot 4. There was no suggestion of paying the new owner.
In the previous order, the adjudicator ordered reimbursement to a former owner.
Whether the new owner of Lot 4 is currently experiencing roof issues is irrelevant. The work undertaken in 2022 addressed the issues existing at the time and eliminated the active leaks. The roof inspection in 2025 notes the roof 'recently replaced and generally compliant' and 'appears to be in good condition overall'. The ongoing issues identified in 2025 primarily relate to components not addressed in the 2022 works.
The body corporate cannot use subsequent, unrelated maintenance issues as a retroactive excuse to deny reimbursement for work that was necessary and effective.
[13]
[25] This issue in this dispute is whether the body corporate is liable to pay the applicant $6,000. I will note the body corporate's responsibilities generally and then consider the specific claim.
[14]
[26] As shown on the survey plan, Parker is registered as a building format plan of subdivision (BFP). In this type of plan, the boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building, including the floors, walls, and ceilings. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[9]
[27] A lot owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except where it is the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[10] A body corporate must usually maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[11] Also in a BFP, a body corporate must usually maintain railings, parapets, and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property, doors, windows, and fittings in the boundary of a lot and common property, and roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property, in good condition.[12] It must also maintain foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection, and essential supporting framework including load-bearing walls, in structurally sound condition.[13]
[28] Some responsibilities for maintaining common property can be transferred to an owner if the body corporate records an exclusive use by-law granting them rights to the common property.[14]
[29] In the context of a body corporate's maintenance obligations, the District Court of Queensland has considered the statutory duty in the Act to maintain. The Court has said:
[15]
The statutory duty imposed ... is one which obliges it to remedy any defect as soon as any of the building parts covered by the duty fall into disrepair or were not operating properly. Failure to do so, once aware, gave rise to a breach of its duty.[15]
[16]
...there is an intention disclosed by the legislation for a duty of care to arise.[16]
[17]
[30] The latter decision applied a Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division case:
[18]
The duty to maintain: involves an obligation to keep a thing in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to serve the purpose for which it exists; requires the body corporate not only to attend to cases where there is a malfunction, but also to take preventative measures to ensure that there not be a malfunction; extends to require remediation of defects in the original construction of the common property; and extends to oblige the body corporate to do things which could not be for the benefit of the proprietors as a whole or even a majority of them. There is a breach of the duty as soon as something in the common property is no longer operating effectively or at all, or has fallen into disrepair. [17]
[19]
[31] The statutory duty to maintain is one of strict liability. A body corporate cannot avoid or defer required work because it has not budgeted for the work, has insufficient funds, or it has other priorities. If it has a liability to undertake maintenance but has insufficient funds to pay for it, unless it raises funds in some other way,[18] the body corporate must raise a special levy to meet the cost of the liability.[19]
[32] The body corporate must act reasonably in undertaking its functions including administering the common property for the benefit of owners.[20] It would be unreasonable for the body corporate to persistently fail to undertake maintenance it knew was required and that it was responsible for. It would also be unreasonable for the body corporate to fail to raise funds for maintenance it was liable for because owners did not wish to incur the cost.
[33] If an adjudicator is satisfied that an applicant has suffered property damage because of a contravention of the legislation or the CMS, the adjudicator can order the person they reasonably believe to be responsible for the contravention to carry out stated repairs or reimburse the applicant for repairs they have carried out.[21] For example, if an owner suffered damage to their lot because of the body corporate's failure to maintain common property, the body corporate may be ordered to reimburse the owners for repairs to the lot that the lot owner would otherwise be responsible for. However, that provision is not relevant to the reimbursement of owner repairs to the common property that the body corporate was responsible for but failed to carry out. Moreover, there is no limitation in the legislation to reimbursement only for repairs that are deemed to be urgent or reasonably incurred.
[20]
[34] I will note at the outset that the previous order about Lot 6, although informative, is not directly relevant to this dispute. I similarly do not consider section 281 of the Act applies to this dispute. The previous dispute involved repairs to a lot which would ordinarily have been an owner responsibility but were found to have been necessitated by the body corporate's failure to maintain the common property roof. As such, it fell squarely within the scope of section 281 of the Act. This dispute does not involve repairs to Lot 4 but rather repairs to the common property roof that the body corporate was ostensibly responsible for under section 180 of the Standard Module.[22] While the applicant is claiming a financial loss, in this application he is not claiming for property damage to his (then) lot.
[35] Although the applicant is no longer the owner of Lot 4, he remains an owner at Parker and so I am satisfied he still has standing under the Act for this dispute. I do not accept that any right to reimbursement attaches to the lot rather than the person who arranged and paid for the work. This assertion by the body corporate is not explained or substantiated and I can see no legal basis for it. There is no suggestion that the new owner of Lot 4 arranged or paid for the work, has claimed reimbursement from the body corporate, or that the right to reimbursement was transferred as part of the sale of the lot. I am satisfied that if the applicant paid the amount claimed, he is the one entitled to seek reimbursement.
[36] It is clear from the survey plan that the roof of Lot 4 (along with the roof of the other lots) is common property.
[37] It is not necessary for present purposes to consider the validity or effect of the exclusive use by-laws in the current CMS in regard to the maintenance of the exterior of the lots. That CMS and its by-laws were not recorded until well after the work the applicant claims. At the time of the purported work to replace the roof on Lot 4, the body corporate was unequivocally responsible for the maintenance of the Lot 4 roof.
[38] It is evident from the Bay Building Services report that as of May 2022 the roof of Lot 4 was not in good condition and required replacement. It had likely been in poor condition for some time. Moreover, the builder recommended the roof be replaced before the internal water damage was repaired. The body corporate acknowledges the roof defects and does not dispute the report obtained by or for the insurer. I am satisfied that at least by May2022, if not before, the body corporate was responsible for replacing the roof on Lot 4. It is clear it did not do so.
[39] The evidence of Bay Building Services is that the roof was causing water damage to Lot 4. It needed to be replaced promptly to prevent further damage and enable internal repairs.
[40] Prima facie, the applicant engaged a contractor to replace the roof of Lot 4 in July 2022 and incurred $7,480 to do so. There is no suggestion that the body corporate ever questioned in 2022 that the work had been done, what was done., or the cost. It is evident from the Ezy Projects report in June 2025 that the main roof was replaced. On the submitted material, I do not consider there is any genuine dispute that the applicant replaced the main roof of Lot 4.
[41] I am also satisfied from the evidence that the body corporate was on notice of the need for the replacement of the roof before it was done and knew the applicant had undertaken the work. The body corporate and the BCM repeatedly acknowledged that the body corporate was responsible for replacing the Lot 4 roof and for reimbursing the applicant for that work.
[42] I consider it is immaterial now whether the work was formally approved before it occurred. It seems the practice of the body corporate at the time was to leave work to owners to undertake and then reimburse them. I do not consider the body corporate can resile from its liability to reimburse the applicant when the applicant followed a process the body corporate adopted or accepted across the scheme. Moreover, the note to the August 2022 AGM motion indicates that quotes for re-roofing works on Lot 4 and 8 had been submitted and approved.
[43] The absence of a resolution agreeing to reimburse the applicant also does not change the body corporate's liability for the roof repairs. Moreover, it is arguable that the body corporate did agree to reimburse the full amount in November 2022 (based on the notified motion with no evidence of a resolution to amend it) but that there was simply a numerical error in the reimbursement amount in the EGM minutes. And the failure of the relevant motion in July 2023 appears to just have been a failure to agree to the special levy rather than a refusal of the reimbursement itself, particularly in the context of the failure to pass other motions about funding maintenance and the minuted discussions about reimbursements.
[44] A receipt for the work was repeatedly provided by the applicant to the body corporate and never questioned by it. The body corporate now says the invoice is insufficient and that a range of additional information should be provided. But there is no indication that the body corporate ever asked the applicant for any of that information before, or that it required that information from any other owner to whom reimbursement was given. Moreover, the lack of that information was apparently no impediment to the body corporate providing the partial reimbursement of $1,480. I consider it to be disingenuous and unreasonable for the body corporate to now dispute the adequacy of an invoice that was accepted 3 years ago.
[45] I note the ABN number on the invoice was registered at the time for the name on the invoice. That name and ABN number are now associated with a registered business name. A Queensland Building and Construction Commission licence search shows the same person now has licences, including for roofing, but only since August 2023. However, the body corporate has not explained why the work could only be done by a licenced contractor or was inadequate or non-compliant because of the lack of a licence at the time.
[46] The body corporate does not substantiate its claim that the work was inadequate or defective. To the contrary, Ezy Projects report the main roof is compliant and in generally good condition. The current Lot 4 roofing issues clearly relate to the garage roof which was apparently not replaced in 2022. The body corporate cannot rationally withhold reimbursement from the applicant for work the body corporate was responsible for because the applicant did not also undertake other work that the body corporate was also responsible for. While minor issues apparently exist with the main roof, I am unclear if any arose in the intervening 3 years. But even if there were original installation issues, there is no suggestion that the original work was not substantially compliant, and no concerns were raised at the time. The need for minor rectification work is not a basis for the body corporate to avoid paying for the substantive replacement of the roof.
[21]
[47] I am concerned from the submitted material that the body corporate has persistently failed to meet its statutory maintenance obligations, or to raise necessary funds for that purpose. For present purposes, I am satisfied the body corporate must reimburse the applicant.
[48] Given how long the body corporate has known it was responsible for the repairs and failed to reimburse the applicant, I also see no reason why it should be entitled to an extended period to now meet its obligation. But I have allowed longer than I would otherwise permit for the reimbursement in light of the holiday season.
[49] I am unclear if the body corporate currently has sufficient funds to pay the applicant. In the previous order, the adjudicator declined to order the body corporate to raise a special levy to fund the reimbursement required in that matter.[23] I acknowledge that reasoning. But if the body corporate does not currently have sufficient funds, it will need to act promptly to raise that money in some way. I will make a declaration to that effect. Raising a special levy would be the most common course of action. The body corporate cannot reasonably fail to raise any funds it requires to meet the reimbursement I have ordered. The body corporate should also be aware that failing to comply with this order is an offence, and the order can be enforced in the Magistrates Court with the potential for a penalty to be applied.[24]
[15] Searles DCJ in Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments[2007] QDC 300 at 67
[31]
[16] Newton DCJ in Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan[2010] QDC 70 at 82
[32]
[17] Brereton J in Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owner's Strata Plan 35042[2006] NSWSC 1157, at para 4 and 5, cited in Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan[2010] QDC 70 at 83 and 84
[33]
[18] Such as borrowing funds pursuant to section 171 of the Standard Module
[22] Although the applicant may have suffered damage to Lot 4 as a result of the failure of the common property roof, this application is not about a claim for damage to Lot 4.
Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020
Title Act 1994
The fact that owners voted against raising funds for the reimbursement is not a legitimate defence to this claim. It reflected owners' financial reluctance at the time.
A body corporate cannot vote to ignore statutory obligations.
The previous order is directly on point with a virtually identical factual matrix.
Section 281 of the Act applies because the applicant has suffered damage to his lot from the water ingress due to the roof failure and suffered quantifiable financial damage by paying for the roof replacement that the body corporate should have funded.
The evidence clearly demonstrates the body corporate's liability and the applicant's entitlement to reimbursement.