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

PROPERTY DAMAGE - JURISDICTION - whether a claim for damage to property and other losses should be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

Act, ss 281, 270(1)(b); Standard Module, s 180.

1. The applicant's claim for the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for losses, including damage to property and alternative accommodation arrangements, alleged to be suffered in February 2022 is dismissed pursuant to section 270(1)(b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, so it may be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] The applicant says they have incurred loss, including damage to property, due to water ingress caused by the body corporate breaching its maintenance duties.
• [2] The applicant has started proceedings in the Magistrates Court, claiming damages in the amount of $34,633.93. However, adjudicators generally have exclusive jurisdiction over a dispute about a body corporate maintenance obligation. In order for their claim to progress in the Court, the applicant requests this application be dismissed on the basis that the dispute should be determined in a court of competent jurisdiction.
• [3] Alternatively, if I decline to make such a dismissal, the applicant seeks reimbursement for various works relating to damage, as well as alternative accommodation costs, at a total of $34,633.93.
• [4] I have dismissed part of the application, seeking reimbursement, pursuant to section 270(1)(b) of the Act, as I am satisfied the claim should be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, where:
  1. The applicant has provided some evidence via third party reports that the cause may be due to insufficient underground drainage, building movement and footing subsidence.
  2. The above raises a question as to whether the body corporate has failed in its maintenance obligations as a result, such as its obligation to maintain foundation structures in a structurally sound condition, amongst other things.
  3. The determination of the cause is likely to involve assessment of more complex expert evidence, and may be better determined in jurisdictions which are better placed to test complex evidentiary issues.
  4. Part of the reimbursement amount is for alternative accommodation costs, and it is questionable whether an adjudicator has power to award such reimbursement in the way the application is framed and argued.
• [5] I have dismissed the remainder of the outcomes sought, as the application has not satisfied me that:
  1. An order that the body corporate undertake works to address the cause is justified, particularly where the application has not particularised the scope of works.
  2. An order that the body corporate pay the applicant's costs is justified, where the application does not advance any argument that they are entitled to same under the Act.
• [6] While the application has not satisfied me that an order for works is justified, this is only based on the materials currently before me. I have been satisfied that the dispute regarding damage and loss should proceed in a different jurisdiction where there is currently some evidence of building movement and structural issues at the scheme. The body corporate may be well advised to investigate these potential issues.

• [7] The scheme is a building units plan of subdivision, now referred to as a building format plan (BFP) subdivision of 6 lots and common property in Coolum Beach. It was registered in 1994, with the survey plans showing the lots are two-story townhouses with garages and balconies as part of the lots. Titles Queensland records also show each lot has been granted exclusive use of an area of common property at the back of each lot. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies.
• [8] The block is rectangular with one of the narrow ends being the entrance. The shape of the building envelope corresponds to the long, rectangular shape of the block. There is a common property drive to the right. On the left, there are a few common car parks at the front of the block, followed by the row of townhouses. The applicant's Lot 1 is closest to the road, adjacent the common property car parking spaces. The common property space between the back of the townhouses and the left boundary of the scheme land is where lots enjoy exclusive use, which appear to be used as courtyards or gardens.

• [9] The applicant says in February 2022, when there was a heavy rainfall event, their lot suffered damage from water ingress. The applicant holds the body corporate responsible for that damage and loss.
• [10] The body corporate did have building insurance and a claim was lodged. However, after the insurer inspected the premises and discussed the matter with the applicant, the claim was denied.

• [11] The applicant seeks the following final orders:

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to section 250 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997(Qld) and referred to the Magistrates Court as having competent jurisdiction to hear upon and decide the matter. > > OR, in the alternative should the application proceed before the Commissioner: > > 2. Damages in the sum of $34,633.93. > > 3. A direction for works to be performed sufficiently and appropriately addressing the underground water and drainage issues; > > 4. The Respondent pay the Applicant's costs; and > > 5. Such further or other direction as appropriate.

• [12] The amounts described by the applicant as 'damages' comprises the following amounts:

a) Make-safe electrical works: $1,540.00 including GST > > b) Plumbing disconnect and reconnect around rectification works: $841.50 including GST > > c) Replace kitchen cabinetry and benchtops: $20,952.43 including GST > > d) Remove and replace doors, hinges and frames, install weather seals: $2,595.00 including GST > > e) Paint and repair cracking to walls: $2,420.00 including GST > > f) Install pump to remove ground water below the Property: $3,405.00 including GST > > g) Twelve (12) nights at $240 per night: $2,880.00 including GST

• [13] The applicant is legally represented and contends that the body corporate is liable for the damage sustained to their lot. It is submitted that the body corporate owed a duty of care, set out in various part of the Act, to maintain the common property and that a failure to do so resulted in the alleged loss.
• [14] Upon reading the application, I held concerns that the application did not clearly identify a definitive cause of the water ingress upon which the applicant relies. Various potential causes were mentioned throughout the material,[1] but none were advanced with sufficient clarity or certainty to permit a finding as to the basis of the claim. Further, the application recited general provisions of the legislation, but did not engage with their particular requirements, nor explain the manner in which the alleged breach occurred. As a result, I held concerns that the body corporate had not been able to provide a meaningful response to the application.
• [15] Pursuant to section 271 of the Act, I sought further information from the applicant. The applicant responded and clarified the following:
  1. The applicant says the cause of the water ingress is a combination of:
     1. Persistent underground water flow from a natural source near the front meter boxes.
     2. Inadequate stormwater drainage which was exacerbated during heavy rainfall.
  2. The applicant says the above causes of the water ingress arose out of a breach of the legislation by the body corporate. The applicant argues the causes can be attributed to the body corporate breaching the following sections of the legislation:
     1. Section 152 of the Act, which the applicant says places an obligation on the Body Corporate to maintain common property, however, has misquoted the section.
     2. Section 177 of the Act, which has been misquoted and I have been unable to identify any section of the legislation that states what the applicant has submitted.
     3. Sections 180 and 192 of the Standard Module, which relate to maintenance of common property, and common property subject of exclusive use. The applicant recites these sections, as well as section 20 of the Act, and says the pipes drains and foundations are the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.

• [16] Submissions were invited from the respondent body corporate and all of its owners. Only submissions from the body corporate, via its legal representative, were received.
• [17] The body corporate argues that:
  1. The applicant has failed to establish that damage to the lot did in fact occur.
  2. If there has been any damage, the applicant has failed to establish that the cause of the damage to the lot was a consequence of the body corporate failing to comply with a statutory duty, and offers evidence by way of a plumbing report which states the storm water pipes were not suffering from blockage or defect.
  3. The applicant has not given sufficient details about the works the applicant says would address the drainage issues.
  4. The applicant does not have standing to request an order that the body corporate perform works, as they have not attempted any internal dispute resolution in relation to this.
  5. The applicant is not entitled to seek an order that the body corporate pay the applicant's costs in preparing the application.
  6. the application is misconceived and without substance, and should be missed with the applicant ordered to pay costs to the body corporate in the amount of $2,000.
• [18] I also afforded the body corporate the opportunity to respond to the further information provided by the applicant. The body corporate submitted, amongst other things, that:
  1. The insurer and its loss adjuster did not attribute the cause of the damage to poor drainage and long-term failure to maintain. Rather, it was attributed to 'long term deterioration' and building movement.

• [19] The first order the applicant seeks is for a dismissal that would allow the claim to proceed in a different jurisdiction.
• [20] The applicant initially filed a claim in the Magistrates Court. Generally, a court will require a section 250 certificate from the Commissioner, or a relevant dismissal to a court of competent jurisdiction by an adjudicator under section 270(1)(a) or (b), before these types of matters progress in those other jurisdictions. This is usually required by other jurisdictions because, pursuant to section 229(3)(a) of the Act, a dispute between an owner and a body corporate in relation to a claimed contravention of the Act typically falls into the exclusive jurisdiction of an adjudicator.[2]
• [21] Notably, an adjudicator's jurisdiction and powers are two slightly different notions, but both are derived from express and implied terms in the Act.[3]

• [22] Under the Act, the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management (commissioner) is tasked with administering Chapter 6,[4] which includes providing, and referring matters to, a dispute resolution service.[5] Once an application has been referred to an adjudicator, the commissioner has no role in the substance or outcome of the dispute.[6]
• [23] Rather than making a dispute resolution recommendation, it is open to the commissioner to dismiss an application pursuant to section 250 of the Act, where the commissioner is satisfied that the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Where the commissioner is so satisfied, the dispute may be dismissed with a certificate evidencing such a dismissal. This certificate afford the parties opportunity to have the matter heard in a different jurisdiction.
• [24] In first instance, the applicant seeks an order that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 250 of the Act. This is not an order that I, as an adjudicator, can make. An adjudicator is not the commissioner, and a dismissal under section 250 is not relevant to an adjudicator's power.
• [25] It is, however, within my power as an adjudicator to dismiss matters pursuant to:
  1. section 270(1)(a) of the Act, where it appears I do not have jurisdiction, or
  2. section 270(1)(b) of the Act, where I am satisfied the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction (emphasis added).
• [26] Where I make such a dismissal, the parties are afforded opportunity to pursue the matter in a different jurisdiction. I will consider whether such a dismissal is appropriate.

3.2. Jurisdiction and powers in claims for damage to property

• [27] The substantive issue in dispute is whether the body corporate has breached its maintenance obligations, and thereby caused the damage and loss to the applicant. As the body corporate submits, at least part of this dispute appears to fall within the ambit of section 281 of the Act.
• [28] Section 281 of the Act provides that, if an adjudicator is satisfied an applicant has suffered damage to property because of a contravention of the Act or CMS, an adjudicator may order the person who the adjudicator believes to be responsible for the contravention to carry out repairs or to pay an amount for reimbursement.
• [29] Maintenance responsibilities are outlined in various parts of the legislation.[7] Therefore, on its face, the application is within an adjudicator's exclusive jurisdiction insofar as it requires direct assessment as to whether there has been a contravention of the Act that relates to the body corporate's maintenance responsibilities.
• [30] I am satisfied the dispute appears to be within an adjudicator's jurisdiction. However, this does not necessarily mean that an adjudicator has the power to grant the relief sought.
• [31] Section 281 of the Act limits the power of an adjudicator to grant relief. For an order for reimbursement, I may not make an order that fixes an amount more than $10,000. For an order to carry out stated repairs, I may not make an order if the cost of carrying out the repairs is more than $75,000.
• [32] The quantum sought by the applicant goes beyond the express powers of reimbursement under section 281. The applicant's claim also seeks a sum for reimbursement of expenses incurred for alternative accommodation, which is economic loss of a different nature to repair of damage which is expressly contemplated in section 281 of the Act. Whether an adjudicator would have power to grant such relief, even if justified, is questionable.[8]

• [33] In the circumstances of this application, there appears to be four possible outcomes:
  1. I dismiss the application in its entirety, without reference to section 270(1)(b). I may do so where I am not satisfied there is any justification for the matter to proceed in a different jurisdiction, which may occur in circumstances where I am not satisfied the body corporate has breached its responsibilities, or where I am not satisfied any breach is connected to the applicant's loss.
  2. I dismiss the whole or a part of the application pursuant to section 270(1)(b), without deciding whether the body corporate has breached any of its responsibilities, nor deciding that the body corporate is responsible for the applicant's loss. I may choose to do so where the application provides some evidence that the body corporate may be responsible, however, am satisfied a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction is best placed to determine those issues.
  3. I order that the body corporate reimburse the applicant for an amount of $10,000 or less. I may do this where I am satisfied the applicant has suffered damage to property due to a breach of the body corporate's maintenance obligations, however, find that the loss is only attributed to damage to property in the amount of $10,000 or less, pursuant to section 281 of the Act.
  4. I order that the body corporate has breached its maintenance responsibilities, however, dismiss the claim for reimbursement or any other resultant loss to a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. I may do this where the applicant has satisfied me that the body corporate has breached its maintenance responsibilities, and I am satisfied the claim for more than $10,000 may be justified.
• [34] I will therefore go on to consider, in the course of considering the orders sought, whether there is any justification for the applicant's claim that the body corporate has breached its legislative maintenance obligations that caused the loss to the applicant, before determining if I am satisfied the dispute should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

• [35] In the alternative to a dismissal, the applicant seeks to be reimbursed for their economic losses alleged to have arisen out of the body corporate's failure to meet its statutorily imposed maintenance obligations.

• [36] Maintenance obligations under the legislation are not always straightforward and are highly dependent on the unique circumstances of each matter. Many times, several sections of the legislation must be contemplated.
• [37] In a BFP subdivision, generally,[9] the boundary of a lot is located at the centre of the floor, wall or ceiling separating a lot from other lots and common property.[10] A lot owner is responsible for maintaining their lot in good condition,[11] which would usually include anything inside of that boundary. The body corporate will usually have the responsibility of maintaining common property in good condition, including common property that is structural in nature, in a structurally sound condition.[12]
• [38] Although, there are several exceptions to these general rules around repair and maintenance works, such as those listed in section 20,[13] and 281,[14] of the Act, and sections 180(2)-(5),[15] 187,[16] 192,[17] and 193[18] of the Standard Module (amongst other things).

4.2. Maintenance obligations that may be relevant in this dispute

• [39] The applicant advances their argument on the basis that there is inadequate underground drainage at the scheme. The application contains the following documents (amongst other things):
  1. Structural Waterproof Consulting report dated 11 April 2022 (SWC Report), which:
     1. Raises concerns regarding a possible underground water table.
     2. Finds there is inadequate drainage, including in the exclusive use courtyard areas.
  2. Exigo loss adjuster report and correspondence dated 17 September 2023 (Loss Adjuster Documents), which:
     1. Found cracking walls typical of footing subsidence.
     2. Attributed the cause to building movement.
     3. Recommended that a structural engineer be engaged to provide a report.
• [40] The body corporate:
  1. Argues that the stormwater pipes at the scheme are in good condition, and evidences this via a plumbing report dated 12 March 2025, which states that the current stormwater drainage at the scheme was not blocked or defective.
  2. Submits that the reason for the claim being denied by the issue was because the assessor found the cause was due to 'building movement', and also relies on the correspondence from Exigo dated 17 September 2023 (part of the Loss Adjuster Documents), that discusses the cause of the damage as building movement and noted the signs 'are typical of footing subsidence'.
• [41] I note the body corporate's evidence regarding the condition of the stormwater pipes. However, the fact that the pipes currently in place at the scheme are not clogged or broken, does not eliminate the possibility that the drainage is insufficient, which is the issue the SWC Report suggests.
• [42] Further, the finding of the loss adjuster that the cause of the damage may be attributed to subsidence of the footings only further advances concern that the body corporate may be responsible.
• [43] Ultimately, the materials in front of me gives some weight to speculation that the body corporate may be in breach of its maintenance obligations. The legislative obligations that may be relevant to this dispute include:
  1. Section 180(1) of the Standard Module, if the area is common property and further drainage is needed to keep the common property in 'good condition'. The obligation to maintain in 'good condition' includes:
     1. keeping the thing in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to service the purpose for which it exists
     2. attending to cases where there is a malfunction
     3. taking preventative measures to ensure that there not be a malfunction, and
     4. remediating of defects in the original construction of the common property.[19]
  2. Section 180(1) of the Standard Module, if the current drainage is considered common property pursuant to section 20 of the Act and any works are needed for the common property drainage to be in 'good condition'.
  3. Section 180(2)(b) of the Standard Module, if improved drainage is necessary to maintain elements of the building, including foundation structures, in a 'structurally sound condition'.
  4. Section 192(3)(b) of the Standard Module, if the improved drainage is needed to maintain an area of common property subject to an exclusive use by-law in a 'structurally sound condition', and the wording of the by-laws do not specifically provide that the lot owner is responsible for such maintenance.
     1. I note here that there are exclusive use areas that may form part of the dispute. The relevant by-law, registered in 1994, refers to section 37(1)(b) and (c) of the then-in-force Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, and there may be some tension between that section and the current Act, including section 177 of the Act, which may or may not have an impact on the matter.
• [44] The application fails to advance clear or particularly useful arguments in relation to the above sections of legislation. The application does not clearly apply the relevant sections to determine whether the areas or infrastructure in question are common property or are otherwise the body corporate's responsibility to maintain in either good condition or in a structurally sound condition. However, I accept the application does provide some evidence, via the SCW Report and Loss Adjuster Documents, that the drainage is insufficient or that the cause may be attributed to issues connected to the structural soundness of the building, and the body corporate currently provides little evidence to rebut this.
• [45] I also accept that this may be a complicated matter and the veracity of this evidence is not clear. In this jurisdiction, an adjudicator is not bound by rules of evidence.[20] It has been stated that the adjudication process is not designed to manage expert evidence with the same care and rigor as attends court proceedings.[21] This, coupled with the claim being for above the express limits on an adjudicator's power to reimburse, satisfies me that this part of the application should be dealt with in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction pursuant to section 270(1)(b).

• [46] When I sought further information from the applicant, I put their solicitor on notice of my various concerns with the application. The solicitor for the applicant submitted in their response that, if I was not satisfied that a cause was sufficiently established, I should order that the body corporate engage at its cost a suitably qualified hydrologist or engineer to investigate the applicant's claims.
• [47] Such an order would be inappropriate. The onus is on the applicant to justify their claim, usually by them providing evidence. Further, the applicant did not request an order of this nature in their initial application.
• [48] However, faced with some evidence that the scheme may be suffering from subsidence, I would strongly encourage the body corporate to consider if it would be necessary for it to obtain such expert advice.

• [49] The applicant seeks an order that would compel the body corporate to undertake works to address the 'underground water and drainage issues'.
• [50] The body corporate argues that the applicant does not have standing to seek such an order as the applicant has not submitted a motion proposing that any works be conducted. The legislation provides that only a person who has made reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute by internal dispute resolution may make an application.[22] I acknowledge and accept that, ideally, before seeking such an order, the applicant would have obtained at least one quote for the works they wish to see undertaken,[23] and would have submitted a relevant motion proposing acceptance of the quote to a relevant meeting of the body corporate.[24] This would undoubtably demonstrate the applicant has attempted internal dispute resolution. However, the submission of a motion is not the only means available, based on the definition of internal dispute resolution in the legislation.[25]
• [51] Nevertheless, in the absence of a clearly pleaded breach of the relevant legislation, and no quotes proposing those works, the nature and scope of the works sought remain uncertain. In those circumstances I hold concerns that the body corporate has not been able to adequately respond to this part of the application. Duly, I cannot be satisfied that any order for works is warranted.
• [52] I am also not satisfied that this request should be dealt with a different jurisdiction. A dispute about whether the body corporate should undertake maintenance works is typically within the exclusive jurisdiction of an adjudicator, requires direct assessment of a claimed contravention of the Act, and is not bound to monetary limits in the way damage to property disputes have limits under section 281 of the Act.

• [53] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate pay the applicant's costs. There are no further particulars regarding this request, however, I believe the applicant is seeking for their legal costs incurred in relation to the application be paid by the body corporate.
• [54] I find that such a request goes beyond my powers as an adjudicator. The jurisdiction and powers of an adjudicator are derived from the Act, and whether a particular power has been conferred in a particular case depends on the construction of the Act.[26] The District Court has previously held that the general power to make orders under section 276 of the Act does not extend to a power to make an order for reimbursement of legal costs, noting section 270(3) of the Act specifically delt with costs and limited the quantum and when it may be available.[27] The power is only available where I dismiss the application where it appears the application is frivolous, vexatious misconceived or without substance, and may only be ordered against the applicant to an amount not more than $2,000. This is of no assistance to the applicant.
• [55] If the applicant is seeking to be reimbursed for the application fees, section 280 of the Act, which provides that an adjudicator may order the respondent to pay the application filing fees for conciliation and adjudication only where the applicant applied for conciliation and the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to participate in the conciliation, is of little assistance to the applicant.

• [56] The body corporate requests for me to dismiss this application pursuant to section 270(1)(c) of the Act. This section provides that, where an application appears to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance, the adjudicator may order costs against the applicant to compensate another party for loss experienced in having to respond to the application. The order for costs may not exceed $2,000.
• [57] While the application is misconceived to some extent, I am satisfied that the applicant has at least substantiated a legal question, and that the matter should proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction.

• [58] The application and submissions have not left me in a position to make any determination as to whether the body corporate is responsible for the damage and loss the applicant says they have suffered. Nonetheless, the applicant has provided some evidence to suggest that the cause may be attributed to the body corporate's failure to meet its legislative maintenance obligations.
• [59] This is a complex matter, where questions of causation, mitigation, reasonableness, delay and quantum may need to be determined. It is highly likely the matter will be dependent on expert evidence. Other jurisdictions may be better placed to test the veracity of that evidence, where rules of evidence do not strictly apply in this current jurisdiction. Additionally, the applicant seeks an amount for economic loss that likely goes beyond an adjudicator's power. I am therefore satisfied the claim for the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for losses allegedly suffered by the applicant in February 2022 be dismissed to a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
• [60] I am not, however, satisfied that an order that the body corporate perform 'works addressing the underground water and drainage issues' is justified, based on the current application. I am similarly not satisfied that this part of the dispute should be determined in a different court or tribunal. Although, that is not to say that the body corporate does not have an obligation to undertake works. The body corporate may like to seriously consider the possibility of inadequate drainage and subsidence further. A more collaborative approach may see this dispute resolved, and may reduce risk of future similar disputes at the scheme.
• [61] I am not satisfied there is a basis to order that the applicant be reimbursed their legal costs under the Act. This part of the application must also fail. Nor am I satisfied that any order for costs should be made against the applicant, as requested by the body corporate.

[1] For evidence: That pipes may have needed repair, see paragraph 5 of Annexure C and paragraph 5b of the statement from Shane Briggs; That a heavy rainfall event occurred, see paragraph 7 of Annexure C; That the existing stormwater system has inadequate capacity to cope with surface water, see paragraph 20 of the statement from Shane Briggs, citing the Structural Waterproof Consulting report; That there was inadequate drainage to deal with a permanent underground natural water source, see paragraph 20 of the statement from Shane Briggs, citing the Structural Waterproof Consulting report; That there was building movement, see paragraph 24 of the statement from Shane Briggs, citing the Exigo report; That there was a lack of maintenance, see paragraph 25 of the statement from Shane Briggs, citing correspondence from Strata Community.

[3] DJL v Central Authority [2000] HCA 17 at [25] as cited in Enderley Gardens [2024] QBCCMCmr 60 at [70].

[7] See, for example, Act, s 152, Standard Module, s 180.

[8] For a more detailed discussion on when an adjudicator has the power to make orders around economic loss, see Victoria Square [2024] QBCCMCmr 387.

[9] There may be exceptions, such as where a private yard exists on the plan. See 9.1 & 9.6.4 of the Registrar of Titles Directions for the Preparation of Plans.

[10] Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 49C(4).

[11] Standard Module, s 211(3).

[12] Standard Module, s 180(1).

[13] Provides when utility infrastructure is, and is not, common property.

[14] Where damage to property arises out of a breach of legislation or CMS.

[15] Outlines particular exceptions to the body corporate's maintenance obligations.

[16] When an item is an improvement to common property made by a lot owner.

[17] Where conditions under an exclusive use by-law change maintenance obligations.

[18] Where there has been an improvement made by an owner of a lot to an area subject of an exclusive use by-law.

[19] MAGOG (NO. 15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for the Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at [83] citing Seiwa Pty Ltd v Owners Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC 1157 at [4].

[21] Victoria Square [2024] QBCCMCmr 387 at [67], who also cited Vickery v The Owners - Strata Plan No 80412 [2020] NSWCA 284.

[23] Two quotes may be necessary in certain circumstances, pursuant to sections 173 and 174 of the Standard Module.

[24] See Standard Module, ss 58 & 86.

[26] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [98].

[27] Woodrange Pty Ltd v Le Grand Broadwater Body Corporate [2004] QDC 215; cited in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300 at [91].