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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about the approach to redeveloping the established gardens at the scheme.
• [2] The applicant indicates a garden subcommittee (GSC) was formed in 2023 and developed a plan (the 2023 garden plan). The applicant says the 2023 annual general meeting (AGM) approved a budget with $235,000 over 3 years for a garden project,[1] but that the 2023 garden plan and budget were not put to owners as a project for approval. The applicant says when work started and some changes were made, concerns were raised and the project stopped.
• [3] A new plan (the 2024 garden plan) was put to the 2024 AGM. Motion 11 approved the 'attached garden project to continue to improve' the gardens and approved a maximum of $50,000 over 2 years with approval by the committee or general meeting subject to individual spending costs. The applicant says the 2024 garden plan sought to keep as much of the existing garden as possible. They say the committee tasked the GSC with implementing the 2024 garden plan without change but after 12 months there has been no progress.
• [4] At the 2025 AGM on 30 September a new or amended plan was proposed (the 2025 garden plan). Motion 13 proposed 'That the body corporate confirms approval of the attached update to the Garden Plan'. The explanatory note indicated enhancements were proposed to the garden plan to allow more flexibility with plant selections and allowing for consultation based on recommendations from the GCS and external expert advice. A document entitled 'Raby Bay Quays Garden Update Plan 2024 - (2025 Enhancement Update)' was included in the AGM notice. Motion 13 passed with 26 votes for and 11 against. The applicant questions the 2025 garden plan, its cost, and the process by Motion 13 was submitted. They question if the extent of the changes was explained and if owners understood what they were voting on.
• [5] The applicant seeks to invalidate the process for presenting the 2025 garden plan and the associated motion and budget; withdrawal of the motion, budget, and plan; reinstatement of the 2024 garden plan; acknowledgement of legislative breaches; and acknowledgement that the 2023 garden plan was illegal. In the interim, the applicant wants to stop work on a temporary basis. At this time, I will consider whether an interim order is warranted.

• [6] Raby Bay Quays community titles scheme 46213 (Raby Bay Quays) is a 56-lot scheme at Cleveland. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 152011, 106800, 198509, and 102683.
• [7] This application seeks an interim order:

An interim order to halt any work is sought on a temporary basis. An order for a short time pending an interim decision would be a good outcome. Many residents on site want work to start and have been convinced that there are no problems with the Garden Sub-Committee or the process to get a vote on the 2025 Garden Plan. An order that lasts for months until a final decision is made will not be well received and will be perceived as another obstruction.

• [8] The application then seeks the following final orders:
  1. That the process of presenting the 2025 Garden Plan, including the associated motion and budget, to residents for voting be recognised as invalid.
  2. That the 2025 motion, budget, and plan itself be withdrawn in their entirety.
  3. That the 2024 Garden Plan be reinstated as the approved and active plan forming the basis for any gardening or landscaping works within the scheme.
  4. That a number of breaches of legislation are acknowledged.
  5. That the 2023 Garden Project be acknowledged as illegal as this is the original basis of much of the dispute.

• [9] 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.[2] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[4]

• [10] The applicant initially applied for conciliation in September 2025.[5] I understand the Commissioner's delegate sought further information about that application but that it has subsequently been withdrawn by the applicant.
• [11] This application was then lodged on 23 October, seeking interim and final orders. As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[6] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [12] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected persons before an interim order is decided. However, given the circumstances, I gave the committee with a limited opportunity to respond to the application.
• [13] The chairperson on behalf of the committee requested an extension of a month for the committee to make a considered response. In doing so, they said:
  1. The primary concern is that the applicant seeks an interim order on a temporary basis and, although not further defined, appears to seek an order prior to an interim order.
  2. The committee feels the interim order would unfairly and materially disadvantage the new resident unit manager in fulfilling their duties. They say it would be unfortunate if the resident unit manager was not invited to make a submission on the interim order.
  3. There are no works scheduled that relate to the implementation of the 2025 garden plan. Any works relating to that would not be undertaken until around March 2026.
  4. The committee meetings approximately every quarter and the next committee meeting is scheduled for 20 November.
  5. The garden enhancement project began before November 2007, well before any involvement of the current committee including the applicant.
  6. The committee believes a thorough investigation of all garden decisions by the body corporate, committee and resident unit manager should be be made available to enable a fair and transparent outcome in line with the voting of the majority.
• [14] In addition, I asked the applicant for copies of the 2023, 2024 and 2025 AGM minutes and notices or other material considered at those meetings. These and other documents were provided. I asked the applicant when the works they sought to stop were to occur, but the applicant said that information 'may be difficult to obtain'.
• [15] The applicant also provided an email sent to the committee on 1 November which referred to the need to discuss process. They referred to discussions about tree removals in August and advice from an arborist. The applicant notes that some plant removals may be necessary but there was a need to follow process and comply with regulations. The chairperson responded that they should pause any garden related discussion until the next committee meeting.
• [16] Given the information provided to date, I do not consider it necessary to delay this matter by giving further time for a committee submission at this stage. I decline the extension request.

• [17] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [18] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[7] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[8] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That means an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [19] It appears the applicant disagrees with the body corporate's decision on Motion 13 at the 2025 AGM, opposes the 2025 garden plan, and objects to the process by which the 2025 garden plan was put to the AGM. It appears the applicant prefers the 2024 garden plan and opposes the 2023 garden plan. However, the legal basis for an adjudicator to make the orders sought is not clear from the application.
• [20] An adjudicator cannot intervene in body corporate decisions simply because someone disagrees with them. One of the objects of the Act is to "balance the rights of individuals with the responsibility for self management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes."[9] In light of this objective, a body corporate decision will only be overturned if it is unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. To do otherwise would be an "unwarranted interference in the ability of the body corporate to make its own decisions, and to independently manage its affairs as contemplated in the secondary objects of the Act."[10]
• [21] At this preliminary stage, I will note some legislative provisions that appear relevant to the current dispute. I will then comment on the orders sought by the applicant.

• [22] The primary way a body corporate makes decisions is in general meetings. General meetings are the principal forum for owner consultation.
• [23] But a committee decision will also be a decision of the body corporate unless it is on a restricted issue.[11] Generally, committees undertake the day-to-day administration of the body corporate, and must implement the lawful decisions of the body corporate.[12]
• [24] The body corporate and its committee must act reasonably in making decisions.[13]
• [25] There is no reason why a committee cannot a appoint subcommittee to assist it with its duties. But a subcommittee would have no legislative standing or authority. The body corporate cannot delegate its powers.[14] So a subcommittee cannot make decisions itself; it could only make recommendations for decisions to be made by the committee or at a general meeting. Because a subcommittee has no formal role or authority, it would be a matter for the committee to decide who would be a member of any subcommittee and the subcommittee's remit.
• [26] The regulations include detailed provisions about the conduct of committee and general meetings, including the giving of notice of those meetings and the production of minutes.
• [27] In regard to general meetings, the committee can submit a motion for consideration at a general meeting at any time.[15] The committee must prepare the agenda for each general meeting, and that agenda must include the substance of motions submitted by the committee and owners.[16] Normally a committee must specifically resolve to submit motions.

• [28] One of a body corporate's general functions is to administer the common property for the benefit of all owners.[17] A body corporate has a statutory obligation to maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[18] However, on the limited information provided, it may be that at least part of the intent of the various garden plans is to make improvements to common property rather than merely maintaining the existing gardens.[19]
• [29] The legislation provides for a body corporate to decide to make improvements to common property.[20] The type of resolution required to approve improvements to common property will depend on the cost of the improvements. If associated improvements form a single project, the relevant financial limits for this purpose will relate to the cost of the entire project.
  1. The committee can approve improvements if the cost of the entire project is not more than the basic improvements limit for the scheme. That limit is $300 times the number of lots (that is, $16,800 in this scheme).
  2. An ordinary resolution at a general meeting is required if the cost of the entire project is within the ordinary resolution improvement range, and the body corporate has not previously passed an ordinary resolution on that basis in the financial year. That range is an amount above the basic improvements limit for the scheme but not more than $2,000 times the number of lots (so, between $16,800 and $112,000 in this scheme).
  3. Otherwise, the improvements must be authorised by special resolution or (if reasonably necessary for health, safety, and security) by an adjudicator's order.
• [30] In addition, the general provisions regarding the control of spending apply.[21] A committee cannot incur incurring expenditure above its committee spending limit except in certain circumstances.[22] If a series of proposals forms a single project, the cost of carrying out any one of the proposals is taken to be more than the committee spending limit if the cost of the proposal as a whole would be.[23] The relevant limit for committee spending at this scheme will be $11,200 unless the body corporate has passed a resolution to change it.[24]
• [31] For spending above the major spending limit, the body corporate or committee (as applicable) must usually circulate and consider at least two quotes.[25] In this scheme, the major spending limit will be $10,000 unless the body corporate has resolved a general meeting to change it.[26]

• [32] Prima facie, it appears the garden plans approved at the 2024 and 2025 AGMs set out the intended approach of the body corporate with regard to the redevelopment of the gardens. It seems the 2024 resolution proposed an approach, and the 2025 resolution amended that.
• [33] The 2024 resolution agreed to a total budget for the project and the 2025 resolution does not appear to have altered that budget.
• [34] However, it is not clear the body corporate has considered quotes or specifically approved spending for the total project or any component of it. If it intends to spend up to $50,000 (or more) on a project to improve the gardens at the scheme, arguably the body corporate would need to consider quotes and approve specific expenditure on the project, or any component thereof. Depending on the total project cost, that may need to occur at a general meeting.

• [35] The applicant wants the process of presenting the 2025 garden plan, including the associated motion and budget, to be 'recognised as invalid'. Although the application is unclear, I infer the applicant is asserting the committee did not validly submit 2025 AGM Motion 13.
• [36] The applicant refers to GSC documents circulated to committee members and the committee's consideration of gardening works at its meeting on 19 August 2025. It is evident a motion proposing an AGM motion to allow variations to the approved 2024 garden plan was passed at the committee meeting with 5 votes for and 2 against or abstained.
• [37] The applicant says draft minutes were issued on 4 September with final (more detailed) minutes issued on 22 September, outside the 21-day period. The applicant has not provided evidence of when the final committee minutes were disseminated. But if they were issued outside the 21-day timeframe, the applicant has not explained why that defect would of itself warrant the invalidation of Motion 13 or the process by which Motion 13 was submitted.
• [38] The applicant says the committee minutes included content that was not said at the meeting and the wording of the motion proposing the AGM motion was different. The applicant questions the reference to previously circulated documents and to getting final approval of the circulated documents in writing. They say nothing was sent to the majority for written approval and the plan in the AGM notice was not presented to the whole committee for consideration.
• [39] The applicant has not provided evidence that their version of the motion the committee voted on was correct, rather than the minuted version. If the minuted resolution was different to the wording of the motion discussed, the applicant has not explained the significance of the difference. Prima facie, both versions indicate an intent on the part of the committee to put an updated or different version of the garden plan to owners to vote on at the AGM.
• [40] Neither version of the committee motion includes the wording of the proposed AGM motion. At this stage, the applicant has not established that Motion 13 did not reflect the intent expressed in either version such that it could be said the committee did not agree to submit Motion 13.
• [41] I am unclear if the entire committee considered or agreed to the contents of the plan included in the AGM notice. If necessary, the committee could ratify the inclusion of that document. But where a majority of owners approved Motion 13 based on the document in the AGM notice, the apparent approval by owners arguably has overtaken the approval by the committee.
• [42] At this stage, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of defects in committee processes to establish that the committee majority did not validly agree to submit Motion 13.

• [43] Next, the applicant wants the 2025 motion, budget, and plan to be withdrawn. As Motion 13 has already been voted on and passed, it is not clear how it could now be withdrawn. However, the resolution passed could potentially be invalidated if it was determined that there were procedural defects in the submission or consideration of the motion, or the body corporate failed to act reasonably in deciding the motion, or if the resolution was unlawful for some other reason. This may be what the applicant seeks.
• [44] The applicant raises a variety of matters, including:
  1. The GSC refers to the 2025 garden plan being in line with the 2024 garden plan, but it will look significantly different to the one approved in 2024.
  2. When a garden plan was approved in 2024, owners would not have expected a new plan to be proposed at the 2025 AGM. Residents would not have understood that the 2024 garden plan was not being implemented but was being completely revised.
  3. The 2024 garden plan had a clause providing for flexibility in the selection of plant species, and the GSC is interpreting this as allowing for all plants to change. The GSC has developed its own guidelines for plant selection. The clause does not allow for the substantial removal of existing plants.
  4. The 2025 garden plan shows details of proposed changes in 4 of 32 areas. They query whether the remaining areas will be left unchanged.
  5. Many owners purchased lots with its existing tropical theme.
  6. The 2024 budget of $50,000 was based on keeping much of the existing garden. The budget has simply been rolled over, but the cost of plants and labour has increased, and the budget does not provide for extensive removals or replacements. Although it is difficult to cost the 2025 garden plan based on the details provided, it has to cost more. They query what happens when the budget is used before the work is complete.
• [45] While the body corporate approved the 2024 garden plan, it can change its mind. If a body corporate no longer wishes to proceed with a resolution as passed, it can decide to revoke or amend that resolution by passing another motion of the same type.[27] The body corporate is not bound to the 2024 garden plan just because it was approved in 2024.
• [46] My preliminary view from the submitted material is that 2025 garden plan is not invalid simply because it is different to the 2024 garden plan or is different to the current look or style of the garden. If the 2025 garden plan was validly approved, it supersedes the previous plan. At this stage, the applicant has not established that the body corporate could not resolve to adopt an amended or an entirely new garden plan.
• [47] The applicant questions whether the motions fully explain the extent of the changes owners were voting on. Although not explicitly stated by the applicant, this could give rise to a question of whether there was adequate notice of the meaning and effect of Motion 13.
• [48] There is an obligation to give proper notice of what is to be considered at a meeting.[28] The District Court has noted the need for a complainant to 'identify with some precision' what was not disclosed that meant there was a failure to make full and fair disclosure.[29] A party would need to establish what was misleading or inaccurate, how it was misleading or inaccurate, and how that was material. Of particular relevance will be evidence that voters were actually confused or misled by the notice.
• [49] In this case, the explanatory note for Motion 13 described the basis for the updated plan, and the AGM notice included a 10-page document describing the plan. I also note the application includes a 2-page document detailing the alleged meaning of the 2025 garden plan and urging owners to vote no, which the applicant and another committee member distributed to all owners. Other committee members circulated a response to that document, alleging inaccuracies in it. At this stage, the applicant has not evidenced that any owners who voted in favour of Motion 13 misunderstood the meaning or effect of the motion or would have voted differently if they had been given further or different information.
• [50] In regard to the applicant's concerns about the budget, the applicant speculates but does not yet substantiate that the 2025 garden plan will cost more than the budget approved at the 2024 AGM. However, it is not clear that any specific expenditure has actually been approved for either the 2024 garden plan or the 2025 garden plan. And if the body corporate wants to increase the estimated budget for the project, it can submit a motion to that effect.
• [51] At this stage, the applicant has not satisfied me there are genuine issues to be determined about the validity of AGM Motion 13.

• [52] The applicant then wants the 2024 garden plan reinstated and for it to be the basis for gardening and landscaping works within the scheme.
• [53] It does not appear that the validity of the 2024 AGM motion that approved the 2024 garden plan has been challenged. To the extent that it was a valid resolution, the committee were required to implement the resolution (subject to any required approval of specific spending). But that does not mean the body corporate could not change or replace the 2024 garden plan.
• [54] On its face, 2025 AGM Motion 13 had the effect of amending 2024 AGM Motion 11. Unless Motion 13 is invalid, Motion 11 no longer has any effect in the form that was originally resolved. Accordingly, unless final order 2 was warranted, the body corporate would need to revoke or amend Motion 13, or pass a new motion, to reinstate Motion 11.
• [55] At this stage, the applicant has not established that the body corporate has a statutory obligation to deal with its gardens in the manner outlined in the 2024 garden plan such that an order requiring that plan to be reinstated would be warranted.

• [56] Next, the applicant wants 'a number of breaches of legislation' acknowledged. However, the application is unclear as to how the applicant asserts the legislation has been breached and why any such breaches would warrant the orders sought.
• [57] The applicant says the committee must act in the interest of all residents, citing sections 100(5), 100(6) and 145 of the Act. In this regard:
  1. The code of conduct for voting committee members says a member must act in the best of the body corporate in performing their duties, unless it is unlawful to do so.[30] But the application does not explain how any individual committee member failed to act in the best interests of the body corporate. And there is no indication the applicant has pursued an alleged breach of the code against any individual.
  2. Section 100(5) of the Act says the committee must act reasonably in making a decision. But it is not clear what committee decisions the applicant is asserting were unreasonable, and the applicant has not sought to invalidate any committee decisions.
  3. There is no section 100(6) of the Act.
  4. Section 145 of the Act relates to the termination of a letting agent's authorisation and so has no apparent relevance to this dispute.
• [58] Next, the applicant says minutes do not give an accurate record of events and were late, citing section 54(2) of the Accommodation Module, and sections 202 and 204 of the Act. The applicant also refers to sections 50 and 148, although I am unclear if the reference is to those sections in the Act or the regulation, or the issue with those sections. However, I note:
  1. Section 54 of the Accommodation Module is about attendance of non-voting committee members at committee meetings and its relevance to this dispute is not apparent.
  2. Section 50 of the Accommodation Module provides for owners to submit motions to the committee, but any dispute here is about a committee submitted motion.
  3. Section 204 of the Act provides for rolls, registers, and records to be kept, given, or disposed of in the way provided for under the regulation module. It does not impose an obligation that could have been breached.
  4. Section 202 of the Act relates to a mortgagee enforcing a mortgage. Section 50 of the Act is about the adjustment of lot entitlements. Section 148 of the Accommodation Module is about the occupation of common property by a service contractor. Section 148 of the Act is about the criteria for reviewing a letting agent's service contract. None of these appear relevant to this dispute.
• [59] Section 63 of the Accommodation Module is relevant to committee minutes. It provides that the committee must ensure full and accurate minutes are kept of committee meetings, and full and accurate records are kept of motions resolved outside a committee meeting. The minutes and records must be given to committee members and owners within 21 days. The requirements for full and accurate minutes and records are detailed in the regulation. There is no requirement for minutes to include the detail of discussions.
• [60] The applicant indicates various issues with committee minutes, presumably for the 19 August meeting. It is not necessary for present purposes to discuss the detail of those. It is not entirely clear how the issues raised are alleged to constitute breaches of the requirements for minutes. Moreover, if there are deficiencies in those minutes, the applicant has not explained why those would warrant the substantive orders sought. The applicant has not sought orders to invalidate any committee resolutions or for amended minutes to be issued.
• [61] It may be the applicant is suggesting defects in the minutes meant owners were not properly informed of the issues when voting on AGM motions. But it was the AGM notice that was the primary vehicle for notifying owners of the meaning and effect of the AGM motions.
• [62] The applicant also refers to conflicts of interest when voting, citing section 151. Section 151 of the Accommodation Module is about adjusting budgets and section 151 of the Act is about bank accounts. But section 58 of the Accommodation Module relates to conflicts of interest. It provides that a committee member must disclose to a committee meeting if they have an interest in an issue being decided by the committee and that interest would conflict with the member's performance of their duties. If a committee member must disclose a conflict of interest, they cannot vote on the motion. However, it is not clear from the grounds to the application how the applicant says this provision has been breached, if that is the assertion.
• [63] Accordingly, while there could potentially be procedural defects relating to the matters in dispute, it is currently not clear what actual legislative breaches the applicant is alleging.
• [64] Moreover, the applicant does not explain what utility there would be in a general order stating or 'acknowledging' that the legislation has been breached, if in fact it has. Adjudicators have broad powers to make orders to resolve the dispute in an application. It is open to an adjudicator to make a declaration about legal rights and responsibilities. However, the case law suggests that a bare declaration that some legal obligation has been contravened may only be appropriate if it would serve to redress the harm brought about by the contravention and would produce some foreseeable consequences.[31]

• [65] Finally, the applicant seeks that the '2023 Garden Project' be 'acknowledged as illegal'. I am unclear as to the meaning or purpose of this order.
• [66] If the 2023 garden plan proposed improvements to common property or expenditure that were not properly approved by the body corporate, then the body corporate would have no authority to implement the plan until such approval was given. If works were taken on common property, or expenditure incurred, in reliance on a plan that was not approved in the required way, those particular works would have been unauthorised.
• [67] But that does not mean any concepts or proposals formulated in 2023 are necessarily 'illegal'. Prima facie the body corporate could choose to pursue that plan, or a variation of that plan, at any time if it passed appropriate resolutions authorising it to do so.
• [68] In any event, the body corporate has approved subsequent plans twice since. So, it is not apparent that it is seeking to implement the 2023 garden plan. Accordingly, it is not clear what utility there is in orders about the 2023 project, even if the applicant was to substantiate a legal basis for such an order.

• [69] An interim order is usually made to preserve the status quo or the interests of the applicant or others until the substantive issues in dispute in the application can be determined. If there is a genuine question about the validity of approval of work, it may be appropriate to make an interim order to stop such work until the substantive legal question can be determined.
• [70] In this case, the applicant wants to stop work on a temporary basis. They say if work starts, established plants could be removed and lost forever, which has occurred in the past. They say owners who voted for the 2024 garden plan to keep the existing look will be disadvantaged if work starts and is later found to be done without proper authorisation.
• [71] But the applicant says they only want to stop work for a short time and not until a final decision is made. They say it would be 'a good outcome' to stop the work pending an interim decision but do not appear to want the work stopped on a longer-term basis because they say that will not be well received. The applicant may misapprehend the interim order process. The purpose of the interim decision is to determine whether an interim order is warranted. That begs the question as to what the utility of the interim order is, if it is not in place until the determination of any substantive legal issues in the application. Simply delaying work for a short period would not prevent the body corporate then proceeding before it can be decided whether the work is validly authorised (if there is a genuine issue to determine in that regard).
• [72] In any event, at this stage the applicant has not identified any specific works the body corporate is planning that they want to stop, or when any such work is scheduled for. The committee indicates no works are scheduled relating to the 2025 garden plan and it will not be implemented until around March 2025. Moreover, it appears further discussion is planned.
• [73] Also, the very broad nature of the interim order sought, to stop unspecified 'work', would impede the ability of the body corporate to undertake general maintenance on the common property gardens or undertake specific work that has been expressly and validly authorised. A vague and unspecified order of that nature would not be appropriate.

• [74] The applicant bears the onus of establishing there are genuine legal issues to be determined and that the nature or urgency of the circumstances would warrant interim relief.
• [75] There may be questions about whether the body corporate has yet resolved to undertake any specific work on the body corporate gardens or particular approved the expenditure for that work, rather than simply agreeing to an approach to the gardens. But at this time the applicant has not raised questions about the validity of 2025 AGM Motion 13 or the 2025 garden plan that are likely to warrant the particular final orders the applicant has sought.
• [76] Furthermore, the applicant has not substantiated that the current circumstances warrant the interim order sought. I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
• [77] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the dispute resolution provisions.[32]
• [78] The applicant may wish to review the application having regard to the matters outlined above.
• [79] If the application proceeds, I propose recommending to the Commissioner this application be referred to conciliation to see if the parties could reach an agreement in respect of any of the issues in dispute. Although the application primarily relates to a general meeting resolution, it seems much of the conflict relates to committee's decision-making processes and disagreements within the committee. It may be that mediation between the committee members guided by a trained conciliator could assist the whole committee moving forward with the approach to garden improvements in a constructive manner.
• [80] If the dispute is not otherwise resolved, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions in respect of the final orders from the committee and all owners.

[1] It appears the sinking fund budget submitted to the 2023 AGM included $67,000 for landscaping for 2023-2024. A professional sinking fund forecast obtained in 2023 included amounts totalling $204,057 over 6 years for 'gardens - upgrade'. It appears that forecast was adopted at the 2023 AGM to provide 'guidance' but it does not appear to have been approved as a budget.

[4] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[10] Adjudicator K Ryan in Massey Lodge [2004] QBCCMCmr 356, paras 13- 14

[13] Section 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[15] Section 76(1) of the Accommodation Module

[16] Section 83 of the Accommodation Module

[18] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

[19] Noting the definition of 'improvement' in schedule 6 of the Act

[20] Section 176 of the Accommodation Module

[21] Sections 162-164 of the Accommodation Module

[22] Section 162 of the Accommodation Module

[23] Section 162(2) of the Accommodation Module

[24] Noting the definition of 'relevant limit for committee spending' in schedule 1 of the Accommodation Module

[25] Sections 163 and 164 of the Accommodation Module

[26] Noting the definition of 'relevant limit for major spending' in schedule 1 of the Accommodation Module

[27] Section 106 of the Accommodation Module

[28] McGill DCJ in Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, para 50, Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland and Anor [2021] QCATA 119 at para 46

[29] Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 v J Patterson Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 300, para 62, 71-72 and citing Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452 at p 468.

[30] Section 3 of the Code of conduct for committee voting members in schedule 1A of the Act.

[31] Truth About Motorways v Macquarie [2000] HCA 11, Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10