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

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS - where the applicant is seeking to challenge two motions purportedly passed at the scheme's annual general meeting - whether orders to invalidate the motions are warranted in the circumstances.

Act, s 94; Accommodation Module, ss 88, 125, 163, 164

• [1] Parkside Apartments Toombul CTS 39237 is an 83-lot scheme situated in Nundah, Queensland. It is governed by the Accommodation Module.
• [2] The applicant is the owner of Lot 804 in the scheme. He is seeking to challenge two motions, Motion 17 and Motion 19, which I understand were purportedly passed at the scheme's annual general meeting held on 30 January 2025 (2025 AGM).[1]
• [3] The applicant says the motions did not comply with the legislative requirements. He says that pursuant to section 88(1)(a) of the Accommodation Module, the chairperson ought to have ruled the motions out of order. In addition, the applicant says the body corporate acted unreasonably in purporting to pass the motions.
• [4] The applicant sought an interim order that until this dispute resolution application had either been finally determined or discontinued, the body corporate should be restrained from implementing or otherwise giving effect to Motion 17 and Motion 19.
• [5] On 27 February 2025 I made an interim order that the Body Corporate for Parkside Apartments Toombul CTS 39237 is restrained from implementing or otherwise relying on Motion 17 purportedly passed at the scheme's 2025 AGM.[2]
• [6] This is my consideration of the applicant's request for final orders. He seeks a declaration that Motions 17 and 19 are unlawful, void and of no effect. He also seeks any further orders as may be determined as being just and equitable for the purpose of determining this dispute.
• [7] The applicant bears the onus to establish that the final orders he seeks are warranted in the circumstances.

• [8] The applicant submitted this application for adjudication on 6 February 2025.
• [9] The commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee and all other owners in the scheme.
• [10] The body corporate committee and eight other owners in the scheme made submissions in response to the application.
• [11] The applicant inspected the submissions made in response and submitted a reply.
• [12] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[3] I was then tasked with deciding the matter.

• [13] Motion 17 of the 2025 AGM proposed the following:

That, subject to Motion 16 and either 15a or 15b being carried, the Body Corporate resolves to authorise the Committee to engage a project manager to project manage the Level 1 Building Works at a cost not to exceed $130,000.00.

Further, that the Committee be authorised to negotiate the contract terms and that any two Committee Members be authorised to sign the contract on behalf of the Body Corporate.

Further, that the Body Corporate raise a special levy totalling $130,310.00, being $157.00 per contribution entitlement ($1,570.00 per Unit)...

• [14] The applicant says Motion 17 failed to comply with section 163 of the Accommodation Module. He says the motion sought to engage a project manager for $130,000, which substantially exceeds the relevant major spending limit for the scheme. He says accordingly, the committee, pursuant to section 163 of the Accommodation Module, ought to have provided two quotations for supplying the services. The applicant says no quotations were provided with the motion.
• [15] In addition, the applicant says that given the scope of the building works to be carried out at the scheme, he assumes the engagement of the project manager will last more than a year. On this basis, he says the proposed project manager is a service contractor for the purposes of section 125 of the Accommodation Module.
• [16] The applicant says Motion 17 did not comply with section 125 as it did not include information about the terms of the project manager's engagement or information about when the engagement begins and ends or any options for extension or renewal. He points out that the motion specifically sought to authorise the committee to 'negotiate the contract terms' which he says confirms that the terms contemplated by section 125 have not been determined.
• [17] The applicant says that, on the basis of the above, Motion 17 was invalid and unlawful. He says the committee chairperson was on notice of the defects prior to the 2025 AGM and the motion ought to have been ruled out of order.
• [18] The applicant says it was unreasonable for the body corporate to purport to ignore the requirement for two quotations and to pre-authorise the proposed engagement of an unknown project manager on unknown terms.
• [19] Motion 19 of the 2025 AGM proposed the following:

That, subject to Motion 18 and either 15a or 15b being carried, the Body Corporate authorise the Committee to approve up to $183,680.20 for the Level 1 Associated costs as outlined the attached Project Estimate, subject to sufficient documentation to support the claim being received, with the anticipated costs as follows:

**Note: the above estimates may vary by up to 10%

Further, that the Body Corporate raise a special levy totalling $183,680.20, being $221.30 per contribution entitlement ($2,213.00 per Unit)...

• [20] The applicant says the issues of non-compliance with the Accommodation Module identified in respect of Motion 17 are equally applicable to Motion 19. He says the amount of spending authorised by Motion 19 exceeds the relevant limit for major spending and no quotations were provided with the motion.
• [21] The applicant argues that Motion 19 is in effect seeking to strike a special levy for anticipated expenditure without the actual expenditure being known. He says a special levy can only be struck once the liability exists.
• [22] The applicant says that, on the basis of the above, Motion 19 was invalid and unlawful and ought to have been ruled out of order.
• [23] In addition, the applicant says it was unreasonable for the body corporate to strike a special levy for anticipated expenditure without the actual expenditure being known and before the liability for the expenditure exists.

• [24] The body corporate submits that Motion 17 did not authorise the carrying out of work or the acquisition of services but merely sought to increase the relevant limit for committee spending to $130,000 for the purposes of the committee engaging a project manager for specified works.
• [25] The body corporate says that, following the passing of the motion, selecting a suitable project manager was a matter for a future committee resolution. It said that at that time section 164 of the Accommodation Module would apply and require the consideration of two quotations. It reiterated there is no requirement to consider two quotations when increasing the relevant limit for committee spending as contended by the applicant.
• [26] The body corporate explains that the committee provided a quote from the contractor 'SW Consult' to illustrate the potential cost of project management services, not as a decision to enter into a contract with SW Consult.
• [27] The body corporate noted the preliminary finding in the interim order on this dispute which said the wording of Motion 17 failed to make it clear that it was only raising the committee's spending limit and, that this ambiguity gave rise to a live issue about whether section 163 of the Accommodation Module was triggered. However, it said Motion 17 should be interpreted having regard to its full context rather than in isolation. The body corporate says the surrounding circumstances, including the supporting materials and the structure of the 2025 AGM agenda, make the intended function of the motion plain.
• [28] The body corporate says that even if there was some drafting imprecision, it did not have the effect of triggering section 163. It says it would be inappropriate to invalidate the motion on the basis of technical construction divorced from its practical purpose and legislative context.
• [29] The body corporate submits it did not act unreasonably in raising the committee spending limit for a specific purpose based on indicative costings. It says the process was consultative and informed.
• [30] In relation to section 125 of the Accommodation Module, the body corporate says the project manager is intended to be engaged to project manage the level 1 building works which are projected to take eight months to complete. It says the appointment of a project manager would not be for more than a year and accordingly, it would not be a service contractor under the Act.
• [31] In any event, the body corporate says it convened an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 16 April 2024 and passed a motion to rescind Motion 17. It says accordingly, no final orders are required in relation to Motion 17.
• [32] The body corporate says Motion 19 was to increase the relevant limit for committee spending to $183,680.20 for the purpose of anticipated relocation expenses related to the building works. It says this can be done by ordinary resolution and there is no requirement to provide two quotations when increasing the relevant limit for committee spending.
• [33] The body corporate says that alternatively, the expenses are not for "the carrying out work or the acquisition of personal property or services" as provided under section 163(1)(a) of the Accommodation Module. It says amounts such as rent, bond, bond cleaning are not "the carrying out of work". Instead, they are costs for the temporary relocation of owners due to urgent repair works. It says accordingly, section 163 does not apply.
• [34] The body corporate says the relocation expenses are a necessary and proportionate response to the approved level 1 building works project. It says the works cannot be safely undertaken with residents occupying affected lots. It says the body corporate acted on expert advice and presented the body corporate with full costings. The body corporate says accordingly, it was reasonable to pass Motion 19.

• [35] Eight owners made submissions in response to the application. Seven of the owners do not agree with the actions of the committee and raise concerns with Motions 17 and 19.
• [36] Many of the submissions made in support of the application broadly raise the same concerns as the applicant. In summary they say the committee did not undertake extensive costings in relation to the expenses set out in Motion 19, no contract has been signed with the contractor for the level 1 building works to commence and, no lending agreement has been entered into. Their submissions ask for both Motions 17 and 19 to be set aside.
• [37] The owner of Lot 612 says the level 1 building works are required to be carried out as a matter of urgency. She says she voted in good faith to have the works commence and this has not happened due to constant interference and delaying tactics by some members of the body corporate.

• [38] In relation to Motion 17, the applicant says the interpretation advanced by the body corporate should not be accepted. He says it is disingenuous for the body corporate to assert Motion 17 only intended to raise the committee spending limit when the committee actually went as far as issuing a letter of intent to the project manager which provided the initial quote.[4]
• [39] The applicant says that when viewing the wording of the motion, it cannot be sensibly advanced that the motion does anything other than seek to engage a project manager on the terms set out. He says engaging a project manager would fall within the ambit of carrying out work and accordingly, section 163 of the Accommodation Module is enlivened.
• [40] The applicant notes that Motion 17 has since been rescinded, however he says an order is still required to provide guidance to the body corporate to refrain from using ambiguous wording in any future motions which might traverse the subject matter.
• [41] In relation to Motion 19, the applicant says his position is that the quantum of the proposed expenditure is unreasonable and ought not to be fixed in a specific amount until such a time as the actual expenditure is known.
• [42] The applicant says that while general estimates may have been obtained, it cannot be advanced by the body corporate that full costing have been provided to all lot owners. He says this position is affirmed by the wording of Motion 19 which relevantly states: "subject to sufficient documentation to support the claim being received".
• [43] The applicant says no justification for the figures provided in Motion 19 were given to lot owners prior to voting on the motion. He says it is not apparent why each lot owner affected by the level 1 building works was not required to provide sufficient document about the expenses they would incur prior to the motion being tabled. He also raises concerns about the possibility that committee members will be making decisions about their own lots and what compensation they are able to claim.
• [44] The applicant says that while Motion 19 lists various items which may reasonably be inferred to correlate with relocation expense which will be incurred due to the level 1 building works, the amounts apportioned to these costs are not set out in any detail nor have they been verified or justified in any way. He says it is unreasonable for special levies to be raised by the body corporate in circumstances where it is unclear whether a lot owner is even entitled to the compensation they have claimed.

• [45] The applicant submits Motions 17 and 19 should have been ruled out of order as they did not comply with section 163 or section 125 of the Accommodation Module. The applicant further submits that the body corporate acted unreasonably in purportedly passing the motions.
• [46] Section 88 of the Accommodation Module sets out the power of the person chairing a general meeting to rule a motion out of order. It relevantly provides that a person chairing a meeting must rule a motion out of order if the motion, if carried, would conflict with the Act, regulation or by-laws or a motion already voted on at the meeting; or would be unenforceable for another reason.[5]
• [47] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module sets out the procedural requirements for motions brought to a general meeting which are proposing major spending by the body corporate. It sets out that where a motion which proposes the carrying out of works or the acquisition of personal property or services will cost more than the major spending limit for the scheme, the person proposing the motion must provide at least two quotations for carrying out the works or supplying the personal property or services.[6]
• [48] Section 125 of the Accommodation Module sets out the procedural requirements for when a body corporate is proposing to engage a service contractor. The section provides that the material forwarded to members of the body corporate when considering a motion to approve the engagement should include the terms of the engagement such as when the engagement begins and ends and any right or option to extend or renew the engagement.
• [49] Section 15 of the Act provides the following definition of a service contractor:

A person is a service contractor for a community titles scheme if the person is engaged by the body corporate (other than as an employee of the body corporate) for a term of at least 1 year to supply services (other than administrative services) to the body corporate for the benefit of the common property or lots included in the scheme.

_Examples of services that might be provided by a service contractor - _

• [50] Section 94 of the Act sets out a body corporate's general functions. Section 94(2) provides that a body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions, including making, or not making, a decision. This includes when passing a motion at a general meeting.
• [51] The cases which deal with reasonableness emphasise that what is reasonable is a question of fact for the decision-maker to determine, and what is required is a careful weighing up of all the relevant factors while not taking irrelevant factors into account.[7] Ultimately, the question is not whether a decision was the 'correct' one, or whether a better one could have been made, rather it is about whether the decision was objectively reasonable.[8]
• [52] I will deal with each of the motions in turn.

• [53] I have noted the arguments made by all parties about Motion 17. However, I understand the body corporate held an EGM on 16 April 2025 and Motion 17 was rescinded.[9] The applicant does not dispute that Motion 17 was rescinded, but says an order is still required to provide guidance to the body corporate to ensure it will refrain from using ambiguous wording in any future motions which might traverse the subject matter.
• [54] While I can understand the applicant's intention, an adjudicator is unable to make an order voiding a motion which has already been rescinded and is no longer of any effect. However, for completeness, I note that nothing in the body corporate's final submissions in relation to Motion 17 would have persuaded me from the views I expressed in the interim order on this dispute about compliance with section 163 of the Accommodation Module and section 94(2) of the Act.
• [55] The Body Corporate for Parkside Apartments Toombul should take note of these sections and ensure it complies with these going forward.

• [56] I have carefully reviewed the arguments made by all parties about Motion 19. The applicant says the amount of spending authorised by Motion 19 exceeds the relevant limit for major spending and no quotations were provided with the motion. He says accordingly, the motion did not comply with section 163 of the Accommodation Module and ought to have been ruled out of order.
• [57] However, I remain of the view I expressed in the interim order I issued on this dispute that it is reasonable to interpret Motion 19 as authorising an increase in the relevant limit for committee spending and accordingly, I find that section 163 of the Accommodation Module did not apply in the circumstances.
• [58] In his reply submissions, I note the applicant says his primary position in relation to Motion 19 is that the quantum of the proposed expenditure is unreasonable and ought not to be fixed in a specific amount until such time as the actual expenditure is known. He says whilst the committee may have obtained general estimates of the expenses, full costings and detailed information have not yet been obtained. He says no justification for the figures contained in Motion 19 were provided prior to lot owners voting on the motion.
• [59] The applicant goes on to say there may be lot owners with a vested interest in receiving compensation from unaffected owners. He says an example would be a lot owner claiming they are entitled to compensation for lost rent when their lot is in fact vacant and no loss of rent was experienced by the lot owner.
• [60] The applicant says the most transparent process would be for affected lot owners to provide documentation substantiating their entitlement to compensation and then a motion could be tabled for a general meeting based on clear information.
• [61] It seems to me the applicant is arguing he is concerned about misrepresentation and fraud in relation to the compensation which can be claimed by affected lot owners. However, he has provided no basis on which to reach this conclusion except for asserting it as a hypothetical possibility. I would not be prepared to make an order to invalidate the motion based on an unsubstantiated potential risk. In any event, Motion 19 sets out that approval for associated costs would be "subject to sufficient documentation to support the claim being received". The applicant has provided no reasons why this safeguard would be insufficient.
• [62] As I set out at paragraph [50] above, a body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision. However, the question is not whether a decision made by the body corporate was the 'correct' one, or whether a better one could have been made. So, although 'the most transparent process' put forward by the applicant may be a better option, this is not the question for me to decide. The issue here is whether the decision made by the body corporate on Motion 19 was objectively reasonable in the circumstances. And, the applicant has failed to persuade me that the decision was unreasonable.
• [63] For completeness, I note the submissions made by other owners that no contract has been signed with the contractor which the body corporate resolved to engage to carry out the level 1 building works. They also say no lending agreement to fund the works has been entered into. Essentially, I understand their argument to be that the relocation expenses under Motion 19 have not yet arisen and the motion should therefore be declared void.
• [64] However, as I set out in the interim order on this dispute, no challenge has been brought against the motion to engage Plexxcon as the contractor to carry out the level 1 building works.[10] There is also no evidence before me to suggest that a contract will not be signed with Plexxcon in due course. The same is true for the lending agreement required to fund the works.
• [65] I remain of the view I expressed in the interim order that the liability for the relocation expenses has arisen as the rectification works have been authorised by the body corporate and this necessitates that the relocation expenses be incurred. I note the committee will be required to act reasonably in making any decision to approve associated costs, and this may include the timing of approving such costs.

• [66] The applicant failed to persuade me that orders to invalidate Motion 17 and Motion 19 of the 2025 AGM were warranted in the circumstances. I have therefore dismissed his application.

[1] The minutes of the 2025 AGM have not been provided however, it is not in dispute that Motion 17 and Motion 19 were purportedly passed.

[2] Parkside Apartments Toombul [2025] QBCCMCmr 68

[3] Section 248(3)(e) of the Act

[5] Section 88(1)(a) of the Accommodation Module

[6] If the motion is proposed by the committee, the committee must obtain the quotations (see section 163(3) of the Accommodation Module).

[7] Luadaka v Body Corporate for The Cover of Emerald Lakes [2013] QCATA 183 applying Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311; Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342; Body Corporate for the Reserve v Trojan resorts Pty Ltd [2017 QCATA 53 (2 May 2017).

[8] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311

[9] Motion 3A of EGM held on 16 April 2025.