//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/92
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-03-24
Original judgment source is linked above.
Pine View Villas [2026] QBCCMCmr 92
The Body Corporate for Pine View Villas (respondent)
Helen Findlay (as treasurer), Michael Mullavey (as an ordinary member of the committee), and RRR Properties (as caretaker) (affected persons)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(g) and 229(3)(a)
Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)
INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders restraining the body corporate from proceeding with a noticed general meeting, or from implementing any resolutions made at the meeting, are warranted and appropriate.
[1] This application for interim orders is made by a lot owner who is also currently the secretary for the body corporate. It concerns an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the body corporate scheduled for 1 April 2026.
[2] At the EGM, owners will be asked to consider motions proposing that the applicant and the current chairperson be removed from their respective roles and that 2 other named owners replace them in those positions. The applicant is seeking interim orders to restrain the body corporate from proceeding with the EGM.
[3] The applicant raises concerns about governance and maintenance issues at the scheme. He is ultimately seeking various final orders about 2 committee members and body corporate decision-making. He says the 2 committee members are "repeatedly engaged in unreasonable conduct, obstructing legitimate body corporate decisions, failing to act in the best interests of the scheme, and breaching Schedule 1A Code of Conduct duties." He also says the body corporate is not acting reasonably in making decisions, including by failing to pay for works completed at the scheme.
[4] In his application for interim orders, the applicant says the EGM is funded by the caretaker who is actively campaigning to remove the current chairperson and secretary from their positions. Where the current secretary and chairperson have been seeking to enforce the terms of the caretaking agreement, the applicant suggests the caretaker has a conflict of interest.
[5] While his application for final orders is pending, the applicant is seeking interim orders that the body corporate be restrained from proceeding with the EGM so that the status quo - namely, the committee as it is currently composed - is preserved until final orders can be determined.
[6] In response to my invitation to the committee to make a submission, each of the affected persons provided separate comments opposing both the application for interim orders and the application for final orders. The current chairperson and another committee member wrote in support of the application for interim orders.
[7] For the reasons given below, I have dismissed the application.
[8] The scheme known as Pine View Villas CTS 27929 (Pine View Villas) consists of 25 lots and common property. The scheme is subject to the provisions of the Act and its community management statement (CMS) shows it is regulated by the Accommodation Module.
[9] The applicant is both the owner of a lot and the current secretary of the body corporate. He is therefore a voting member of the committee.
[10] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Pine View Villas.
[11] The current treasurer, an ordinary member of the committee, and the caretaker for the scheme are each an affected person (together, affected persons).
[12] Chapter 6 of the Act establishes arrangements for resolving certain disputes that arise in the context of community titles schemes. To come under the ambit of Chapter 6, a "dispute" must be between one of the combinations of persons and bodies specified in section 227 of the Act[1] and the "dispute" must be within the context of a communities titles scheme and fall within one or more categories of disputes described in section 228(1) of the Act.
[13] One of the specified combinations is a body corporate and a member of the committee for the body corporate.[2] The categories of dispute include "contraventions of this Act or community management statements" and "the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act or community management statements."[3]
[14] Where a person is a party to and is directly concerned with such a "dispute" and has made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute, the person may make an application for dispute resolution.[4] In legal terms, this is often referred to as having "standing" to make an application.
[15] The Commissioner referred the application for interim orders to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
[16] Where the Commissioner refers an application to department adjudication, adjudicators are given powers to resolve the dispute including a broad power to make an order that is "just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order)."[5] An adjudicator is expressly given more specific powers, including the power to make interim orders.[6]
[17 The applicant is both the owner of a lot and a member of the committee for the body corporate. Disputes between the applicant and the body corporate may, therefore, fall within either section 227(1)(b) (an owner of a lot and the body corporate) or 227(1)(g) (a member of the committee and the body corporate). In order for the applicant to have a direct interest in the dispute in his capacity as a committee member - and therefore to have standing to make the application in that capacity - the dispute must be one that would directly affect his interests as a committee member.[7]
[19] Accordingly, I am satisfied for this application that the applicant has standing to make it and I have jurisdiction and power to make orders to resolve the disputes presented therein.
[20] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. In the circumstances, however, where the applicant seeks interim orders about an EGM to be held on 1 April, I gave the body corporate a short opportunity to provide its comments on the application for interim orders.
[21] The applicant describes intra-committee conflict. He is claiming that 2 committee members have engaged in unreasonable conduct, obstructed legitimate body corporate decisions, failed to act in the best interests of the scheme, and breached several of the duties of committee members found in Schedule 1A Code of Conduct duties for voting members of the committee. He says he makes this application in good faith to restore proper governance and prevent ongoing committee obstruction that harms the scheme and its residents.
[22] More specifically, he says the current treasurer and an ordinary member of the committee have repeatedly engaged in unreasonable conduct including:
[23] The applicant explains that the body corporate has noticed an EGM to be held on 1 April 2026. At the EGM, owners will be asked to consider Motion 2, which proposes that the body corporate decide to remove the person currently serving as chairperson from the position and appoint a named member of the body corporate as chairperson. Motion 3 similarly proposes the body corporate decide to remove the applicant from the secretary position and appoint another named person to act in that role.
[24] The applicant says the current caretaker has actively campaigned to remove the current chairperson and secretary from their positions and is funding the EGM. The applicant alleges this is a conflict of interest. He suggests that the caretaker is not acting in the best interests of the body corporate but is motivated to have the chairperson and secretary who are seeking to enforce the caretaking agreement removed from their positions.
[25] The applicant is ultimately seeking 6 final orders, including final orders to remove the ordinary member and current treasurer from the committee and requiring the body corporate to disqualify them from serving on the committee for 2 years, a declaration that the committee and body corporate failed to act reasonably by obstructing and delaying payment for electrical works to common property, a declaration that any resolution to remove the chairperson and secretary is invalid where the EGM was funded by the caretaker, and an order requiring the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for the application fee and reasonable costs incurred in bringing this application.
[26] By this application for interim orders, the applicant, as the current secretary for the body corporate, seeks:
An interim order that the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 1 April 2026 at 4:00 PM not proceed (or, alternatively, that motions 2 and 3 not be voted on) until this application is finally determined
[27] The applicant says the interim orders are sought to preserve the status quo and prevent immediate harm by stopping the conflicted EGM. If interim orders are not made, he says the body corporate may remove the only two resident committee owners who actively enforce accountability, complete urgent safety and maintenance work, and hold the caretaker accountable.
[28] He says further that, if interim orders are not made, the new chairperson will be a current committee member with compliance issues and the new secretary will be a non-resident owner with documented compliance and lot maintenance issues.
[29] The applicant says these changes would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the scheme's governance and expose the body corporate to ongoing risk from unresolved safety issues and by-law breaches.
[30] In the circumstances, I provided the committee with a short opportunity to comment on the application for interim orders. Separate submissions were received from 4 committee members and the caretaker.
[31] The current chairperson, supports the application for an interim order maintaining the status quo until final orders are made. He says an interim order is essential to keep the complex from deteriorating while the final application is being decided.
[32] Another member of the committee also made a submission in support of the application for interim orders. She says the application raises serious and valid issues that deserve a full investigation. She supports the making of an interim order to stop the EGM from proceeding. She expresses her concern that, if the EGM goes ahead and the body corporate passes Motions 2 and 3, then the only two people she believes to be keeping the complex running properly will be removed. If that occurs, she is worried that maintenance will be ignored, by-laws will stop being enforced, and things will quickly get worse for everyone.
[33] The current treasurer wrote opposing the application. She wrote at length disputing assertions made by the applicant in support of the final orders sought. She also made claims that it is the applicant (and the chairperson) who are acting unreasonably and contrary to the code of conduct. She included assertions about the applicant and current chairperson's governance style and their treatment of the caretaker.
[34] The treasurer views the application for interim orders as retaliatory and says it is imperative that the EGM scheduled for 1 April 2026 goes ahead. She says owners have received their voting papers and have the right to expect the EGM will proceed.
[35] One of the ordinary members of the committee also made a lengthy submission opposing both the interim and final orders sought. He too disputed many of the assertions made by the application and provided his own version of events. Where the application for an interim order is concerned, he says
Preventing the EGM would interfere with the lawful rights of lot owners to vote and undermine the democratic governance framework established under the BCCM Act. The Applicant has not demonstrated any irreparable harm that would justify such intervention. As the EGM is a legitimate and appropriate mechanism for resolving issues relating to committee composition, it should be allowed to proceed. The interim order should not be granted.
[36] The director of the caretaker for the scheme also wrote opposing the application. He also refutes the assertions made in support of the application for final orders and makes his own claims about the actions of the applicant and the current chairperson. With regard to the interim orders sought, I understand him to saying holding an EGM will allow owners to make decisions about the future governance of the scheme.
[37] The only issue to decide at this time is whether the requested interim order is warranted and appropriate.
[38] I am empowered to issue an interim order if I am satisfied "on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates."[8] If I am satisfied such an order is necessary, I may make an interim order that is just and equitable. Adjudicators often make interim orders in the form of a temporary injunction (an order not to do something) to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of an application.
[39] To determine if it is just and equitable to make an interim order, there must be some reason in law to make an order. For this, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute. The applicant must satisfy me that there are serious legal questions to be answered. At this stage, an applicant does not need to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that their legal arguments will be successful.[9] Rather, I must be satisfied there is a sufficient likelihood of success to justify making an order.
[40] Higher courts considering whether to make interlocutory restraining orders indicate that what amounts to a sufficient likelihood of success may depend upon the nature of the claim and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order sought.[10] As a result, I must consider the practical reasons for and the likely effects of an interim order. This is known as assessing the balance of harm. To make this assessment, I must consider the harm or inconvenience to the applicants if I do not make an interim order but they were to later prevail on their application for final orders. I must weigh that against the harm to the body corporate if an interim order is made but the applicants are later unsuccessful in the application for final orders.
[41] Accordingly, to determine whether I am satisfied any of the interim orders are warranted and appropriate, I will consider whether serious legal issues with sufficient likelihood of success have been presented and I will also consider the inconvenience and potential for harm to the respective parties.
[42] The final orders sought raise legal issues that can be grouped into 3 categories.[11] There are orders sought relating to:
[43] The applicant seeks final orders requiring the body corporate to remove 2 of the current members of the committee from their positions and disqualify those persons from serving on the committee for a period of 2 years.
[44] The responsibility for self-management is an inherent aspect of the Act.[12] The legislation specifies how committee members must be chosen and how a body corporate may decide to remove committee members.
[45] A body corporate must hold an AGM within the three months after the end of its financial year.[13] It must choose the members of its committee each year at its AGM.[14] Individuals are eligible to be nominated and chosen as voting members of the committee if they are the owner of a lot, a member of a lot owner's family, or acting under a power of attorney given by an individual owner.[15] If committee positions become vacant after an AGM, a series of provisions govern how casual vacancies are to be filled.[16]
[46] There are 2 ways that a body corporate can decide to remove a member of the committee.
[47] Section 36 of the Accommodation Module provides the term of office of a member of the committee continues until either another person is chosen for the position, the position becomes vacant, or the term of office ends. A committee member's position, including the positions of chairperson and secretary, may become vacant if the body corporate decides by ordinary resolution at a general meeting to remove the person from the position.[17]
[48] Alternatively, a body corporate can decide to remove a committee member for breaching the code of conduct for voting members of the committee. To make such a decision, the body corporate must follow the process set forth in section 37 of the Accommodation Module.
[49] The applicant alleges 2 committee members have repeatedly engaged in unreasonable conduct and final orders should be made to require the body corporate to remove them from and disqualify them from their committee positions.
[50] Even assuming for the sake of the analysis that all the assertions about the 2 committee members' conduct are accepted, parliament has clearly vested the body corporate with the power to remove and appoint replacement committee members. Owners at a general meeting are the ones to cause the body corporate to decide at a general meeting whether to remove a committee member from their position and, if so, may also decide who should replace the committee member.
[51] Regardless of the applicant's claims about the reasonableness of the conduct of the current treasurer and another member of the committee (which are not for determination at this stage), the applicant has not explained how, or on what legal basis, an adjudicator can or should direct the body corporate's exercise of its power to choose its committee.
[52] For the above reasons, I am not persuaded the applicant has raised serious legal issues about the appointment of a replacement chairperson and secretary with a sufficient likelihood of success of prevailing on an application for final orders for me to issue an interim order that would restrain the body corporate from exercising its powers of self-management.
[53] The applicant also seeks a final order declaring that the body corporate failed, in contravention of various sections of the legislation, to act reasonably in relation to payment for lighting works completed at the scheme.
[54] When fulfilling its functions, a body corporate is required by section 94(2) of the Act to "act reasonably" in making (or not making) decisions. Section 100(5) of the Act similarly imposes a duty on the committee to "act reasonably."
[55] Courts and Tribunals interpreting sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act have found that "act reasonably" in making a decision is used in the ordinary sense of the words to mean that the actions - the process of considering a proposal and weighing the factors for and against - must be genuine, evidence-based, and rational.[18] To be rational in making a decision means that a body corporate is required to evaluate relevant factors that have a bearing on the issue and to ignore irrelevant factors.[19] The specific factors to be considered will vary depending on the context of the decision.
[56] The applicant says the works at issue were approved by the committee on 21 September 2025 and were completed by the chairperson of the body corporate who supplied the materials and installed the lighting.
[57] The applicant says the lighting works were necessary for the scheme to comply with electrical safety requirements and to eliminate a risk of electrical shock. He says the works and spending were approved by a majority of the committee. The works were completed and an invoice issued to the body corporate on 11 November 2025.
[58] The applicant says the body corporate has failed to pay the invoice for the works because the treasurer and one of the committee members have failed to act reasonably. He claims they have insisted on more detailed invoices and receipts, belatedly and inconsistently applied committee spending limits, and failed to pay for completed works. He says further, this exposes the body corporate to a legal challenge for non-payment. I infer the applicant is suggesting those committee members have caused the body corporate to fail to act reasonably.
[59] These claims are disputed in the interim submissions from other members of the committee.
[60] For this dispute, there are multiple legal questions to be answered at adjudication for final orders about the committee's decision making relating to works to be undertaken by, and payment to be made to, the current chairperson and current secretary. Those questions include whether the committee validly approved the works being performed by the chairperson and secretary, whether the claim is for reimbursement or services, whether the costs of the works were within the relevant committee spending limit, and whether the committee has acted reasonably in delaying payment when the works are complete.
[61] Those are not questions that can (or should) be answered on an application for interim orders. However, in my view, these legal issues are sufficient for me to consider whether interim orders are necessary until final orders can be made.
[62] Accordingly, the next question is whether in the circumstances presented the dispute about non-payment warrants the making of an interim order restraining the body corporate from proceeding with the April EGM. I do not think it does.
[63] Committee members, no matter who they are, are individually required to act in the best interests of the body corporate. As a decision making body for the body corporate, the committee as a collective is required to act reasonably. Those obligations persist and apply equally to anyone serving as a voting member of the committee and regardless of the composition of the committee.
[64] In other words, even where legal questions remain to be answered about committee decision making and non-payment for services, I am not persuaded it is necessary (or appropriate) to issue an interim order to restrain the April EGM from proceeding.
[65] The applicant also argues that the April EGM and any decisions made at the EGM should be invalidated because the EGM is funded by the caretaker. He says the caretaker has contacted a committee member in a hassling and unacceptable manner in order to gain support for the EGM.
[66] The applicant implies the caretaker has a vested self-interest in seeing the committee comprised of members that will not enforce the caretaking agreement. The applicant says this means the caretaker has a conflict of interest.
[67] I understand the applicant to be claiming that the alleged conflict of interest taints the April EGM and final orders should be made to invalidate it on that basis. While his application for final orders is pending, I understand the applicant to be requesting an interim order with the effect that the EGM not go ahead.
[68] I am not persuaded at this initial stage that the applicant has raised a legal issue that has much chance of prevailing at final orders.
[69] Firstly, even if the caretaker has funded the EGM, the applicant does not appear to dispute the validity of the request by 25% of lot owners for the EGM. My preliminary view is that the EGM appears to have been validly called pursuant to section 74 of the Act.
[70] Secondly, it will be the members of the body corporate voting on the motions at the EGM. There is no explanation of, and I cannot see at this time, how there is a connection between who pays for the EGM and how owners vote on motions to be decided at such a meeting.
[71] Moreover, what the applicant describes is a perceived conflict of interest. As noted above, regardless of its membership at any one time, the committee as a collective is required comply with the Act, including by acting reasonably in performing its functions. Individuals are obligated to act in the best interests of the body corporate. Those obligations apply to decision-making about enforcing the caretaking agreement and maintaining the scheme.
[72] Finally, the interim order sought by the applicant - one precluding the EGM from proceeding in April - would serve to effectively provide the applicant with the final relief he seeks. Such an order is not appropriate at an interim stage.
[73] In support of the application for interim orders, the applicants say the matter is urgent because the EGM is noticed for 1 April 2026.
[74] The applicant says if interim orders are not made and the EGM proceeds, he and the chairperson - the only two on-site committee members actively enforcing accountability and attending to urgent safety and maintenance works - will be removed and replaced. The applicant contends that this would result in:
immediate and irreparable harm to the scheme's governance, expose the body corporate to ongoing risk from unresolved safety issues and by-law breaches, and allow the caretaker (who is funding the EGM) to remove the members responsible for holding him accountable.
[75] The applicant claims further that the interim order is genuinely urgent and temporary. He says it would simply preserve the status quo until the final orders can be determined.
[76] In response, the affected persons effectively submit that such an interim order would deprive owners of the right to vote on who they prefer to be committee members.
[77] Having considered the application and the body corporate's response, even if I was satisfied the applicant had made a prima facie case on some aspects of the application with sufficient prospects of success at final orders, I am not persuaded that the requested interim order is sufficiently related to the final orders sought or that the particular interim order sought is necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.
[78] Apart from the conflict of interest issue, the applicant does not suggest there are any defects in the notice for and the calling of the EGM. Nor does he claim that any person holding a committee position (or proposed to hold a different position) is not eligible to do so.
[79] Rather, the primary nature of, and underlying issue at the crux of the dispute, is the subjective view of the applicant about which particular persons should and should not serve as chairperson and secretary of the body corporate.
[80] As I detailed above, whether particular persons should be removed as voting members of the committee is a question to be determined by the members of the body corporate at a general meeting.[20]
[81] Moreover, the result of the vote on the motions to be considered at the EGM remains to be determined and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. The members of the body corporate have not yet decided whether to vote in favour or against Motions 2 and 3. In other words, at this point in time, the removal of the current chairperson and/or secretary and the claimed harm the applicant says will follow as a consequence are only hypothetical.
[82] The balance of convenience and/or harm also weighs against making the interim orders sought. If I was to issue an interim order now but the applicant subsequently failed to prevail on his application for final orders about the validity of the EGM, the members of the body corporate would be deprived of an opportunity to exercise their right to vote for the chairperson and secretary they prefer.
[83] Conversely, if I was to refuse to issue an interim order now and it is later declared that the EGM is invalid, the body corporate will nevertheless continue to have a committee in the intervening period. Whomever is serving on the committee is obligated to comply with the code of conduct for voting members of the committee, which means they will be required to act in the best interests of the body corporate and take reasonable steps to comply with the legislation.
[84] For these reasons, I decline to make the interim order sought.
[85] I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
[86] If the dispute is not resolved and the applicant does not withdraw the application, the application for final orders will remain to be determined. The application for final orders will be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.
[87] I note it appears from the application that some of the intra-committee conflict relates to competing views on whether a body corporate may pass on the costs charged by its body corporate manager for a vote outside committee (VOCM) to occupiers seeking committee approval for a pet. The parties may find it instructive to review recent adjudicator decisions on this question. See e.g., Thirty Four Riverwalk [2025] QBCCMCmr 349 at [35] and Lenvilla [2018] QBCCMCmr 146.[21]
[1] For the purposes of the Act, there are some circumstances in which a "dispute" may involve only one party. See Section 227(2) of the Act
[4] See Sections 226, 227, 229, and 238(1) of the Act
[5] See Sections 226, 227, 229, and 238(1) of the Act
[7] See Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297 at [94]
[9] The granting of an interim order by itself does not indicate whether an applicant will ultimately be successful on their application for final orders.
[10] See e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 80 ALJR 1672 at [65] citing Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at 622 - 623
[11] Although the applicant also seeks reimbursement for the application fee and other costs, I do not consider those final orders sought are relevant to the application for interim orders.
[13] See Section 73 of the Accommodation Module
[14] See Section 14(a) of the Accommodation Module
[15] See e.g., Sections 38 through 42 of the Accommodation Module)
[16] See Sections 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Accommodation Module. The director, secretary, or other nominee of a corporate owner are also eligible. See id. at section 11(1)(c). An individual may become ineligible in certain circumstances. See id. at Section 11(2)
[17] See Section 17(4) of the Accommodation Module
[20] To be clear, not all decisions about which persons will be voting members of the committee are to be made by the body corporate at a general meeting. In some cases, the committee may appoint a person to fill a vacancy on the committee. See e.g., Section 40 of the Accommodation Module
[21] Both of these adjudicator orders are available by searching on https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/
(1968) 118 CLR 618
(2006) 80 ALJR 1672